House Report 112-541 - DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2013

[House Report 112-541]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-541

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

DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2013

_______

June 20, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Latham, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 5972]

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2013.

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

_______________________________________________________________________

Page number

Bill Report
Title I--Department of Transportation...................... 2
5
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development...... 71
71
Title III--Related Agencies................................ 134
106
Title IV--General Provisions............................... 142
111

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

During fiscal year 2013, for the purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and
activity'' (PPA) shall mean any item for which a dollar amount
is contained in appropriations acts (including joint
resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or
accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint
explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This
definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget
(obligational) authority is provided, as well as to
discretionary grants and discretionary grant allocations made
through either bill or report language. In addition, the
percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to
funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal
Aviation Administration, shall be applied equally to each
budget item that is listed under said account in the budget
justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations acts
and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or
joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference.

OPERATING PLANS AND REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee includes a provision (Sec. 405) establishing
the authority by which funding available to the agencies funded
by this act may be reprogrammed for other purposes. The
provision specifically requires the advance 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;
--redirects 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 must provide a table for each appropriation with
columns displaying the budget request; adjustments made by
Congress; adjustments for rescissions, if appropriate; and the
fiscal year enacted level. The table shall delineate the
appropriation both by object class and by PPA. The report also
must identify items of special Congressional interest. In
certain instances, the Committee may direct the agency to
submit a revised operating plan for approval or may direct
changes to the operating plan if the plan is not consistent
with the directives of the conference report and statement of
the managers.
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 of proposed changes on the budget request for
the following fiscal year. Any reprogramming request shall
include any out-year budgetary impacts and a separate
accounting of program or mission impacts on estimated carryover
funds. Reprogramming procedures shall apply to funds provided
in this bill, unobligated balances from previous appropriations
Acts that are available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal
year 2013, and non-appropriated resources such as fee
collections that are used to meet program requirements in
fiscal year 2013.
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.
Except in emergency situations, reprogramming requests should
be submitted no later than June 28, 2013. Further, the
Committee notes that when a Department or agency submits a
reprogramming or transfer request to the Committees on
Appropriations and does not receive identical responses from
the House and Senate, it is the responsibility of the
Department to reconcile the House and Senate differences before
proceeding and, if reconciliation is not possible, to consider
the request to reprogram funds unapproved.
The Committee would also like to clarify that this section
applies to Working Capital Funds and that no funds may be
obligated from working capital fund accounts 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 the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). In fact, OMB Circular A-11, part 6 specifically
instructs agencies to ``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 2014 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 this 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, 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 2014 to the fiscal year 2013
enacted levels.
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
2014 budget request.

SURFACE AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION

There are no words to adequately describe the absolute
necessity for the enactment of a multi-year surface
authorization bill in the immediate future. For years,
stakeholders, the Congress, the committees of jurisdiction and
the Department of Transportation have sounded the alarm on the
status of the Highway Trust Fund and the need to decide on a
meaningful reauthorization package. We are literally at the end
of the road. While some may say both the House and Senate
proposals are far from perfect, at least the Congress is making
a serious attempt to address the problem, albeit only through
fiscal year 2013. Every president since Eisenhower has formally
submitted to the Congress a highway bill, except the current
Administration. The Congress and the public have seen ideas and
concepts, but never a complete package with a serious method of
funding the programs. The Committee has made recommendations
for all of the transportation programs in this bill, and is
optimistic that serious and rational people will come together
to find a resolution in time for the funding levels in this
bill to take effect.
In order to be aware of how funds are allocated and spent,
the Committee directs the Department of Transportation to
report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate within 45 days of enactment of
any surface extension or reauthorization on how the Department
will enact the provisions of such extension or reauthorization,
the allocations by state, and the effects on the accounts in
the Highway Trust Fund.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $102,481,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 110,450,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 108,277,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +5,796,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... -2,173,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill provides $108,277,000 for the salaries and
expenses of the offices comprising the Office of the Secretary
of Transportation (OST). The Committee's recommendation is
$5,796,000 greater than the appropriation provided in fiscal
year 2012, and $2,173,000 below the budget request. The
Committee's recommendation includes individual funding for each
of these offices as has been done in prior years. Increases are
primarily due to inflation, an extra compensable workday, and
increases in rent and working capital fund expenses. The
following table (dollars in thousands) compares the fiscal year
2012 enacted level to the fiscal year 2013 budget request and
the Committee's recommendation by office.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------------------
2013
2012 enacted 2013 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary...................................... $2,618 $2,635 $2,635
Deputy Secretary............................................. 984 992 992
Executive Secretariat........................................ 1,595 1,701 1,701
Policy....................................................... 10,107 11,248 11,248
Small Business............................................... 1,369 1,539 1,539
Intelligence and Security.................................... 10,778 10,875 10,875
Chief Information Officer.................................... 14,988 15,117 15,117
General Counsel.............................................. 19,515 19,615 19,615
Government Affairs........................................... 2,500 2,601 2,601
Budget....................................................... 10,538 13,201 12,825
Administration............................................... 25,469 28,672 27,095
Public Affairs............................................... 2,020 2,254 2,034
Total Salaries and Expenses............................ 102,481 110,450 108,277
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immediate Office of the Secretary.--The immediate Office of
the Secretary has primary responsibility to provide overall
planning, direction, and control of departmental affairs.
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary.--The Office of
the Deputy Secretary has primary responsibility to assist the
Secretary in the overall planning, direction, and control of
departmental affairs. The Deputy Secretary serves as the chief
operating officer of the Department of Transportation.
Executive Secretariat.--The Executive Secretariat assists
the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in carrying out their
responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and
external documents.
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for
Policy.--The Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation
for Policy serves as the Department's chief policy officer, and
is responsible for the coordination and development of
departmental policy and legislative initiatives; international
standards development and harmonization; aviation and other
transportation-related trade negotiations; the performance of
policy and economic analysis; and the execution of the
Essential Air Service program.
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.--
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization is
responsible for promoting small and disadvantaged business
participation in the Department's procurement and grants
programs.
Office of the Chief Information Officer.--The Office of the
Chief Information Officer serves as the principal advisor to
the Secretary on information resources and information systems
management.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental
Affairs.--The Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Governmental Affairs is responsible for coordinating all
Congressional, intergovernmental, and consumer activities of
the Department.
In addition, the bill continues a provision (Sec. 185) that
requires the Department to notify the Committees on
Appropriations no fewer than three business days before any
discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding
grant agreement in excess of $1,000,000 is announced by the
Department or its modal administrations from: (1) any
discretionary program of the Federal Highway Administration
other than the emergency relief program; (2) the airport
improvement program of the Federal Aviation Administration; (3)
any grant from the Federal Railroad Administration; and (4) any
program of the Federal Transit Administration other than the
formula grants and fixed guideway modernization programs. Such
notification shall include the date on which the official
announcement of the grant is to be made and no such
announcement shall involve funds that are not available for
obligation.
Office of the General Counsel.--The Office of the General
Counsel provides legal services to the Office of the Secretary
and coordinates and reviews the legal work of the chief
counsels' offices of the operating administrations.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and
Programs.--The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is
responsible for developing, reviewing, and presenting budget
resource requirements for the Department to the Secretary,
Congress, and the Office of Management and Budget. Of the funds
provided, $2,300,000 is for the establishment of a credit
office to evaluate the applications for the Department's
various credit accounts and oversee the vast loan portfolio.
The Committee's recommendation does not include funding for
additional contractual services.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.--The
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration serves as
the principal advisor to the Secretary on department-wide
administrative matters and her responsibilities include
leadership in acquisition reform and human capital. The
Committee's recommendation includes funding for adjustments to
the base and the proposed procurement reviews.
Office of Public Affairs.--The Office of Public Affairs is
responsible for the Department's press releases, articles,
briefing materials, publications, and audio-visual materials.
The Committee's recommendation does not include additional
funds for speechwriting contracts, social media services and
news clipping services.
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response.--
The Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response
was established in fiscal year 2005 by merging the Secretary's
Office of Intelligence and Security with the Research and
Special Program Administration's Office of Emergency
Transportation. This office is responsible for intelligence,
security policy, preparedness, training and exercises, national
security, and operations.
Congressional Budget Justifications.--The Committee will
give serious consideration to the fiscal year 2014 budget
proposal only if proposed legislation, including a method for
paying for any program changes, is transmitted concurrently
with the budget in February 2013. The Department is directed to
include in the budget justification funding levels for the
prior year, current year, and budget year for all programs,
activities, initiatives, and program elements. Each budget
submitted by the Department must also include a detailed
justification for the incremental funding increases and
additional FTEs being requested above the enacted level, by
program, activity, or program element.
OST must include a discussion in its justification of
changes from the current year to the request, plus a crosswalk
of all accounts, existing and proposed, from one year to the
next. To ensure that each adjustment is identified, the
Committee directs OST in future congressional justifications to
include detailed information in tabular format, which
identifies specific changes in funding from the current year to
the budget year for each office, including each office within
OST, and every mode and office within the Department.
Operating Plan.--The Committee directs the Department to
submit an operating plan for fiscal year 2013 signed by the
Secretary for review by the Committees on Appropriations within
60 days of the bill's enactment. The operating plan should
include funding levels for the various offices, programs, and
initiatives detailed down to the object class or program
element covered in the budget justification and supporting
documents, documents referenced in the House and Senate
appropriations reports, and the statement of the managers.
Further, should the Department create, alter, discontinue, or
otherwise change any program as described in the Department's
budget justification, those changes must be a part of the
Department's operating plan. Further, the Department is
directed the introduction of the report regarding reporting
requirements after enactment of surface authorizations.
General Provisions.--The Committee continues to direct DOT
to justify each general provision proposed either in its
relevant modal congressional justification or in the OST
congressional justification. If the budget proposes to drop or
delete a general provision, the Department is directed to
explain the change as well.
Bill Language.--The bill continues language that permits up
to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the Office of the
Secretary for salaries and expenses.

LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... $5,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -5,000,000

The goal of the livable communities program is to promote
livable communities through investment in transportation
infrastructure to decrease transportation costs; improve access
to jobs and services; promote healthy communities; improve air
quality; protect the natural environment; and enhance the
unique characteristics of communities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation does not include funding for
the Livable Communities Office in fiscal year 2013, just as no
funds have been provided in any prior fiscal year. The budget
proposed $5,000,000 for this purpose. Zoning and planning
activities are best and currently conducted at the local level.
Various existing grant programs within the Department allow for
planning activities and localities are free to utilize already
available funds as they see fit.

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $500,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 500,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -500,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -500,000,000

The National Infrastructure Investment program was created
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to provide
grants to state and local governments to improve the Nation's
transportation infrastructure. The infrastructure investment
program awards funds on a competitive basis to grantees
selected because of the significant impact they will have on
the Nation, a metropolitan area, or region.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend additional funds for the
national infrastructure investment program (also known as
``TIGER grants'') as proposed by the budget request. The
Congress appropriated $500,000,000 for this purpose in fiscal
year 2012. While the Committee agrees that the Nation is in
desperate need for infrastructure investment and improvements,
the Administration has yet to demonstrate or define the
process, priority or criteria for how these grants are awarded.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $4,990,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 10,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 10,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +5,010,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The Financial Management Capital program continues funding
for a multi-year project to upgrade DOT's financial systems and
processes. The project will implement Treasury Department and
Office of Management and Budget requirements. Deployment of the
new system is anticipated in 2014.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

This Committee recommends the budget request of $10,000,000
for financial management capital program, which is $5,010,000
above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Appropriations, fiscal year 2012...................... $10,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 6,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 6,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -4,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The Cyber Security Initiative is a new 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 $4,000,000 less than the fiscal year
2012 enacted level.

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $9,384,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 9,773,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 9,773,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +389,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the
Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity issues, and
ensuring the full implementation of the civil rights laws and
departmental civil rights policies in all official actions and
programs. This office is responsible for enforcing laws and
regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally operated
and federally assisted transportation programs and enabling
access to transportation providers. The Office of Civil Rights
also handles all civil rights cases affecting Department of
Transportation employees.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $9,773,000
for the office of civil rights, which is $389,000 over the
fiscal year 2012 appropriation.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $9,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 10,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 8,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -1,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -2,000,000

This appropriation finances research activities and studies
related to the planning, analysis, and information development
used in the formulation of national transportation policies and
plans. It also finances the staff necessary to conduct these
efforts. The overall program is carried out primarily through
contracts with other federal agencies, educational
institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private
firms.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,000,000 for
transportation planning, research and development, which is
$1,000,000 below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and
$2,000,000 below the level proposed in the fiscal year 2013
budget.

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, fiscal year 2012.......................... $172,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 174,128,000
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2012...................... +2,128,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. +174,128,000

The working capital fund was created to provide common
administrative services to the operating administrations and
outside entities that contract for the fund's services. The
working capital fund operates on a fee-for-service basis and
receives no direct appropriations; it is fully self-sustaining
and must achieve full cost recovery.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $174,128,000 on
the Working Capital Fund (WCF), the same level as proposed in
the budget if all of the WCF expenditures were added up. WCF
costs are anticipated to increase $2,128,000 over fiscal year
2012. The Administration did not propose a WCF legislative
limitation. The Committee continues to stipulate that the
limitation is only for services provided to the Department of
Transportation, not other entities. Further, the Committee
directs that, as much as possible, services shall be provided
on a competitive basis.
The Committee continues the direction to update the WCF
``transparency paper'' in the fiscal year 2014 budget
justification. The Committee finds the information contained in
the annual paper to be extremely useful when evaluating the
needs and proposals of the various offices.

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Appropriation guaranteed
loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....... $922,000 ($18,367,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...... 1,285,000 (21,955,000)
Recommended in the bill............... 1,285,000 (21,955,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012... +363,000 (+3,588,00)
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.. - - - - - -
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Through the Short Term Lending Program, the minority
business resource center assists disadvantaged, minority, and
women-owned businesses with obtaining short-term working
capital for DOT and DOT-funded transportation-related
contracts. The program enables qualified businesses to obtain
loans at two percentage points above the prime interest rate
with DOT guaranteeing up to 75 percent of the loan.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $418,000 to
cover the subsidy costs of guaranteed loans and $867,000 for
administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan
program for a total appropriation of $1,285,000, which is
$363,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The
Committee recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of
$21,955,000, the same as the budget request, and $3,588,000
over fiscal year 2012.

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $3,068,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 3,234,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,234,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +166,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The minority business outreach program provides contractual
support to small and disadvantaged businesses by providing
information dissemination and technical and financial
assistance to empower those businesses to compete for
contracting opportunities with DOT and DOT-funded contracts or
grants for transportation-related projects.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $3,234,000
for the minority business outreach program, which is $166,000
greater than fiscal year 2012. The Committee directs the
Department to expand its outreach efforts in rural areas.

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $143,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 114,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 114,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -29,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The Essential Air Service program (EAS) was created by the
Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a ten-year measure to
continue air service to communities that had received air
service prior to deregulation. The program currently provides
subsidies to air carriers serving small communities that meet
certain criteria.
The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of
1996 authorized the collection of ``overflight fees''.
Overflight fees are a type of user fee collected by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) from aircraft that neither take
off from, nor land in, the United States. The FAA Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012 increased the authorized level of
overflight fee collection, and increased the amount that the
Department can apply to the EAS program. The budget request
estimates that this would increase the mandatory funding for
this program from $50 million in FY 2012 to at least $100
million in FY 2013.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends a total EAS
program funding level of $214,000,000. This consists of a
general fund appropriation of $114,000,000, and $100,000,000 to
be derived from overflight fee collections. The Committee's
recommendation for the EAS program is $71,000,000 above the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level and equal to the fiscal year
2013 request.
The following table shows the discretionary, mandatory, and
total program levels for the EAS program:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation Mandatory Total Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 appropriation........................................... $143,000,000 $50,000,000 $193,000,000
FY 2013 request................................................. 114,000,000 100,000,000 214,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 114,000,000 100,000,000 214,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee believes the funding level provided is
sufficient to serve all eligible EAS communities. However, the
Committee recommendation includes language allowing a transfer
of funds into this program from funds provided to the Office of
the Secretary.
The Committee includes the Department's proposal to limit
the EAS program to only those communities being served between
September 30, 2010 and September 30, 2011. The Committee
remains concerned about the growing costs associated with the
EAS program. While limiting the program to current sites and
eliminating the requirement that EAS carriers utilize 15-
passenger aircraft have helped mitigate some of the cost
growth, the Committee believes that the Department should
continue to explore reforms to the program that will create
greater competition among carriers and control overall costs.
The Committee directs the Secretary to provide a letter report
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March
15, 2013 that describes measures that could increase
competition for EAS providers and help contain additional cost
growth. For example, the Department should explore whether the
EAS requirement that carriers utilize twin engine aircraft
should be modified to allow single engine aircraft as long as
safety is not compromised. The Committee understands that some
communities have requested a waiver from the twin engine
requirement and is interested to learn whether these waivers
have helped preserve service and keep overall costs under
control.

Administrative Provisions--Office of the Secretary of Transportation

Section 101. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from
approving assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to
funds appropriated to the operating administrations in this
Act, unless such assessments or agreements have completed the
normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
Section 102. The Committee continues the provision allowing
the Secretary or his designee to work with States and State
legislators to consider proposals related to the reduction of
motorcycle fatalities.
Section 103. The Committee continues the provision allowing
the Department to use the Working Capital Fund to provide
transit benefits to Federal employees.
Section 104. The Committee continues the provision
regarding administrative requirements of DOT's Credit Council.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible
for the safety and development of civil aviation and for 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 Secretary of Commerce 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 subsumed into a new,
independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority.
After further administrative reorganizations, 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
began its operations on April 1, 1967, the Federal Aviation
Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
and became one of several modal administrations within the
department. The Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out
with enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and
ceased to exist at the end of 1984. FAA's mission expanded in
1995 with the transfer of the Office of Commercial Space
Transportation from the Office of the Secretary and contracted
in December 2001 with the transfer of civil aviation security
activities to the new Transportation Security Administration.
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 authorized FAA
programs through 2015 with several new mandates to improve the
National Airspace System (NAS), including provisions regarding
the NextGen program for Air Traffic Control and provisions
regarding the use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) in civilian
airspace.

OPERATIONS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $9,653,395,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 9,718,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 9,718,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... 64,605,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

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, medical, engineering and development programs as
well as policy oversight and overall management functions.
The operations appropriation includes the following major
activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a
national air traffic system; (2) establishment and maintenance
of a national system of aids to navigation; (3) establishment
and surveillance of civil air regulations to ensure safety in
aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations
governing the physical fitness of airmen as well as the
administration of an aviation medical research program; (5)
administration of the acquisition, and research and development
programs; (6) headquarters, administration and other staff
offices; and (7) development, printing, and distribution of
aeronautical charts used by the flying public.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $9,718,000,000 for FAA operations,
which is the same as the budget request and $64,605,000 above
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
A comparison of the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, the
budget request, and the Committee recommendation by budget
activity is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013
FY 2012 enacted FY 2013 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic organization............................... $7,442,738,000 $7,513,850,000 $7,513,850,000
Aviation safety........................................ 1,252,991,000 1,255,000,000 1,255,000,000
Commercial space transportation........................ 16,271,000 16,700,000 16,700,000
Finance and management................................. 582,117,000 573,591,000 573,591,000
NextGen and operations planning........................ 60,134,000 60,064,000 60,064,000
Staff offices.......................................... 299,144,000 298,795,000 298,795,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 9,653,395,000 9,718,000,000 9,718,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justification of general provisions.--The Committee
continues its direction to provide a justification for each
general provision proposed in the FAA budget and therefore
expects the fiscal year 2014 budget to include adequate
information on each proposed general provision.

TRUST FUND SHARE OF FAA BUDGET

The bill derives $4,682,500,000 of the total operations
appropriation from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. The
balance of the appropriation, $5,035,500,000, will be drawn
from the general fund of the Treasury.

AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION

The bill provides $7,513,850,000 for air traffic services,
which is the same as the budget request and $71,112,000 above
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
Organizational Structure.--In September 2011, the Committee
approved FAA's reprogramming request to implement
organizational changes as part of the ``Foundation for
Success'' initiative. The reorganization was intended to better
execute the Next Generation of Air Traffic Control program
(NextGen) and allow the Agency to operate in a more effective
and efficient manner.
Since the inception of the Air Traffic Organization in
2003, there have been several reorganizations intended to
streamline operations, improve performance, and produce cost
savings and efficiencies. Past efforts have met with limited
success in controlling operating costs and executing major
acquisitions. The Committee recognizes that it will take time
for the most recent reorganization to mature and have the
desired impacts. This reorganization will be hollow unless FAA
builds the necessary expertise and strengthens program and
contract management to manage NextGen. The Committee needs
assurances that the Foundation for Success initiative will
achieve the desired outcomes in managing major acquisitions and
cost savings. The Committee requests that 180 days after
enactment of this bill, the FAA provide the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations with a report on progress to-date
and to what extent goals for the reorganization are being met.
This is a longstanding issue that directly affects FAA's
ability to provide effective and proactive oversight of the
aviation industry. Section 606 of the FAA Modernization and
Reform Act of 2012 requires FAA to implement, in as cost-
effective manner possible, an improved aviation safety
inspector model by October 1, 2012. The Committee fully expects
FAA to comply with these requirements, and requests that
results of the staffing model also be provided to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations at the same time it is
provided to the appropriate authorizing Committees.
Air Traffic Controller Training.--A key issue moving
forward will be ensuring that FAA has a sufficient, well-
trained controller workforce. Currently, FAA has about 15,200
controllers onboard--25% of whom are controllers in training.
FAA is planning to hire as many as 980 new controllers in FY
2012 and another 1,200 in FY 2013 but may revisit the matter
given the decline in traffic from peak levels in 2000. A recent
report by the DOT Office of Inspector General on staffing and
training issues at FAA's most critical facilities found an
alarmingly high attrition rate for new controllers. One reason
for this high attrition is inadequate training resources
available to these facilities. FAA's Air Traffic Control
Optimum Training Solution Program is a key vehicle for
delivering controller training. This program, however, has not
met expectations for training new and existing controllers or
for transforming the paradigm for training. It appears that
problems are directly traceable to poor FAA planning and the
Agency's inability to establish firm requirements. Moreover,
FAA has made downward adjustments in contract funding over the
last 2 years and instructed its contractor in April to reduce
support for various training efforts. It is becoming
increasingly clear that FAA needs to rethink its overall
approach to controller training.
These problems come at a time when the number of fully
certified controllers who are eligible to retire is increasing,
and the Committee is concerned that FAA does not have an
effective or executable plan for training the next generation
of air traffic controllers. The Committee will continue to
closely watch this issue, and requests that FAA forward to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the studies
called for in Section 609 of the FAA Modernization and Reform
Act of 2012 regarding the adequacy of FAA's air traffic
controller training programs.
Contract tower program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $140,350,000 for the contract tower program, including
$10,350,000 to continue the contract tower cost-sharing
program. The Committee includes language that limits
contributions in the contract tower cost share program to 20
percent of total costs.
The Committee is concerned that the current effort by FAA
to update cost-benefit information may not fully take into
account the broad array of benefits the program provides to
individual communities, including enhanced safety, cost
savings, and economic development. The Committee notes that
FAA's updated cost-benefit calculations could reduce federal
funding obligations and shift significant costs to local
communities that have little if any ability to absorb
additional costs. The Committee directs, prior to releasing or
acting upon updated cost-benefit data, the FAA to seek input
from affected local airports. The FAA should also provide a
report to the Committees on Appropriations on the rationale for
the cost-benefit changes, and the economic impact to affected
airports prior to acting on any updated calculations.
Aeronautical Navigation Products.--The Committee is
concerned that Aeronautical Navigation Products (AeroNav)
removed publicly available aeronautical data from its website
without notice and is implementing a per-subscriber user fee
for this information. Further, AeroNav's product availability
has been sharply reduced from seventeen days to twenty-four
hours in advance of the effective date of the chart. This
change appears to be in conflict with the FAA mission of
providing timely and accurate information for pilots in the
interest of safe and efficient navigation. The Committee
directs the FAA to develop a fair and equitable fee structure
for its AeroNav products that takes into consideration input
from industry stakeholders and restores the 17-day availability
of digital content. The Committee directs the FAA to report on
it plans to adhere to this directive no later than March 1,
2013.

AVIATION SAFETY

The Committee provides $1,255,000,000 for aviation safety,
which is $2,009,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level,
and equal to the budget request.
The Committee continues its direction requiring the
Secretary to provide annual reports regarding the use of the
funds provided, including, but not limited to, the total full-
time equivalent staff years in the offices of aircraft
certification and flight standards, total employees, vacancies,
and positions under active recruitment.
Aircraft Certification Service.--The Committee provides no
less than the full budget request of $209,969,000 for the FAA's
Aircraft Certification Service. The Committee remains concerned
that delays in FAA certification of new aircraft and related
technologies could negatively affect aviation safety, as well
as the economic health and competitiveness of U.S.
manufacturers. Accordingly, the Committee reiterates its
interest in FAA's progress on certification reforms, as these
critical activities are of utmost importance to aviation
safety.
Inspector Staffing.--The Committee continues to place a
high priority on FAA's critical safety workforces and funds its
inspector workforce at the requested level. FAA is making
progress in advancing risk-based oversight systems for its
4,300 safety inspectors. FAA's inspector workload is driven by
a number of factors, including complexity of air carrier
operations and industry use of foreign and domestic aircraft
repair stations. However, we are concerned about FAA's lack of
progress in using a reliable inspector staffing model. After
several years of development, it is troubling that FAA is still
not using a useful model to determine the appropriate number of
safety inspectors needed or where they should be located to
address the most pressing safety risks.
Human Intervention Motivation Study and the Flight
Attendant Drug and Alcohol Program.--The Committee recognizes
the effectiveness of the Human Intervention Motivation Study
(HIMS) and the Flight Attendant Drug and Alcohol Program
(FADAP) in mitigating drug and alcohol abuse through a peer
identification and intervention program. The Committee
recommendation includes $2,103,000 to continue these programs
through fiscal year 2015.
The Committee is concerned with the length of time the FAA
is taking to process manufacturers' petitions to be included on
the list of approved Portable Oxygen Concentrators (POCs) under
the Special Federal Aviation Regulation 106 (SFAR 106). SFAR
106 permits passengers to carry on and use certain POCs on
board aircraft if the devices are determined to be acceptable
by established safety standards and aircraft operators ensure
certain safety conditions are met. Delays in the current
process threaten to dissuade the investment of manufacturing
companies in the United States in the development of innovative
new technologies. The Committee urges the FAA to follow through
on its 2005 commitment to promulgate a performance-based
standard for all POCs so specific manufacturers do not have to
pursue formal rulemaking for each device model. In the interim,
the Committee urges the FAA to establish a procedure by which
SFAR 106 petitions are reviewed and processed not later than 6
months after the initial submission.

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

The Committee recommends $16,700,000 for the office of
commercial space transportation, which is equal to the budget
request and $429,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
The Office of Commercial Space Transportation protects
public safety through regulatory oversight of the rapidly
growing U.S. commercial space transportation industry. The FAA
also has a statutory mandate to encourage, facilitate, and
promote commercial space transportation. The commercial space
transportation industry is nearly certain to increase its
activities providing orbital and suborbital services to serve
commercial, scientific, and government purposes. Of particular
importance are orbital flights to support the operation of the
International Space Station. This increase in commercial space
activity will require the FAA to provide a significantly
greater number of permits and licenses. The Committee wishes to
ensure that the FAA has the ability to provide these permits
and licenses effectively and efficiently so that the U.S. can
emerge as the world leader in space transport. The Committee
will encourage a reprogramming of funds to the Office of
Commercial Space Transportation above the levels provided, if
necessary to keep pace with this growing industry.

FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $573,591,000 for finance and
management activities, which is equal to the budget request and
$8,526,000 below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
Workforce Diversity Report.--In 2011, the Administration
issued Executive Order 13583 requiring all Federal agencies to
develop a plan for recruiting, hiring, promoting, and retaining
a diverse workforce. The Committee reiterates its direction
that the FAA report data and information on the agency's
recruitment outreach and hiring efforts in minority
communities. The Committee expects the report to include a
year-to-year comparison of hiring statistics for
underrepresented populations as well as a description of the
strategies the agency utilizes to recruit a more diverse
workforce. The FAA is directed to provide its letter report to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 1,
2013.

NEXTGEN AND OPERATIONS PLANNING

The Committee recommends $60,064,000 for NextGen and
Operations Planning, which is equal to the budget request and
$70,000 below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

BILL LANGUAGE

Second Career Training Program.--The bill retains language
prohibiting the use of funds for the second career training
program. This prohibition has been in annual appropriations
Acts for many years and is included in the President's budget
request.
Aviation User Fees.--The bill includes a limitation carried
for several years prohibiting funds from being used to finalize
or implement any new unauthorized user fees.
Aeronautical Charting and Cartography.--The bill maintains
the provision prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to
conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C) activities
through the working capital fund (WCF).
Credits.--This bill includes language allowing funds
received from specified public, private, and foreign sources
for expenses incurred to be credited to the appropriation.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $2,730,731,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 2,850,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,749,596,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +18,865,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -100,404,000

The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account is the principal
means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and
airway facilities. 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 airspace
system.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$2,749,596,000, for the FAA's facilities and equipment program,
an increase of $18,865,000 above the level provided in fiscal
year 2012 and $100,404,000 below the budget request. The bill
provides that, of the total amount recommended, $2,269,596,000
is available for obligation until September 30, 2015, and
$480,000,000 (the amount for personnel and related expenses) is
available until September 30, 2013. These obligation
availabilities are consistent with past appropriations Acts.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------- Committee
2012 enacted 2013 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 1--Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation:
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping............. $29,000,000 $33,100,000 $33,100,000
NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center Facilities............... 14,000,000 11,500,000 11,500,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center Infrastructure 7,500,000 8,000,000 8,000,000
Sustainment................................................
Data Communications for Trajectory Based Operations (NGATS). 143,000,000 142,630,000 142,630,000
Next Generation Transportation System Technology 15,000,000 24,600,000 24,600,000
Demonstration..............................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Systems Development.. 85,000,000 61,000,000 55,000,000
Next Generation Transportation System--Trajectory Based 7,000,000 16,500,000 16,500,000
Operations.................................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Reduce Weather Impact 15,600,000 16,600,000 16,600,000
Next Generation Transportation System--High Density/Arrivals/ 12,000,000 11,000,000 11,000,000
Departures.................................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Collaborative ATM.... 24,000,000 24,200,000 24,200,000
Next Generation Transportation System--Flexible Terminals 33,300,000 30,500,000 30,500,000
and Airports...............................................
Next Generation Transportation System--System Network 5,000,000 11,000,000 11,000,000
Facilities.................................................
Next Generation Transportation System--Future Facilities.... 15,000,000 95,000,000 36,415,000
Performance Based Navigation/RNAV/RNP....................... 29,200,000 36,200,000 41,200,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total Activity 1.................................... 435,600,000 522,830,000 463,245,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 2--Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment:
a. En Route Programs:
En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM).................... 155,000,000 144,000,000 144,000,000
En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM)--Post Release 3.... .............. 10,000,000 10,000,000
En Route Communications Gateway (ECG)....................... 2,000,000 3,100,000 3,100,000
Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD)--Provide............. 2,800,000 3,300,000 3,300,000
Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC)-- 3,600,000 .............. ..............
Relocation.................................................
ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements.............. 41,000,000 46,000,000 40,000,000
Air Traffic Management (ATM)................................ 7,500,000 21,700,000 21,700,000
Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure.................... 4,800,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Air Traffic Control En Route Radar Facilities Improvements.. 5,800,000 5,900,000 5,900,000
Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS)................... 1,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000
Oceanic Automation System................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/Ground 45,150,000 33,650,000 33,650,000
Communications System (NEXCOM).............................
System-Wide Information Management.......................... 66,350,000 57,200,000 57,200,000
ADS--B NAS Wide Implementation.............................. 285,100,000 271,600,000 271,600,000
Windshear Detection Service................................. 1,000,000 .............. ..............
Weather and Radar Processor (WARP).......................... 2,500,000 500,000 500,000
Collaborative Air Traffic Management Technologies--WP2...... 41,500,000 34,420,000 34,420,000
Colorado ADS-B/WAM Cost Share............................... 3,800,000 1,400,000 1,400,000
Automated Terminal Information System (ATIS)................ 1,000,000 .............. ..............
Tactical Flow Time Based Flow Management.................... 38,700,000 12,900,000 12,900,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal En Route Programs.............................. 712,600,000 668,670,000 662,670,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Terminal Programs:
Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X (ASDE-X)....... 2,200,000 7,400,000 7,400,000
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)--Provide.............. 7,700,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) 25,000,000 34,500,000 34,500,000
(TAMR Phase 1).............................................
Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program (TAMR 108,750,000 153,000,000 153,000,000
Phase 3)...................................................
Terminal Automation Program................................. 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace............ 51,600,000 64,900,000 64,900,000
ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) Facilities-- 52,000,000 25,200,000 25,200,000
Improve....................................................
Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR).................... 8,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards Compliance.. 24,600,000 26,000,000 26,000,000
Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9).......................... 6,000,000 6,400,000 6,400,000
Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11)............................. 3,900,000 8,200,000 8,200,000
Runway Status Lights........................................ 29,800,000 35,250,000 35,250,000
National Airspace System Voice Switch (NVS)................. 9,000,000 10,250,000 10,250,000
Integrated Display System (IDS)............................. 8,800,000 4,200,000 4,200,000
Remote Monitoring and Logging System (RMLS)................. 4,200,000 4,700,000 4,700,000
Mode S Service Life Extension Program (SLEP)................ 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
ASR-8 Service Life Extension Program........................ .............. .............. ..............
Surveillance Interface Modernization........................ .............. 2,000,000 2,000,000
Tower Flight Data Manager (TFDM)............................ .............. 37,600,000 35,600,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Terminal Programs.............................. 348,050,000 432,600,000 430,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Flight Service Programs:
Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS)................... 2,500,000 .............. ..............
Future Flight Service Program............................... .............. 8,000,000 8,000,000
Flight Service Station (FSS) Modernization.................. 4,500,000 2,900,000 2,900,000
Weather Camera Program...................................... 4,800,000 4,400,000 3,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Flight Service Programs........................ 11,800,000 15,300,000 13,900,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Landing and Navigational Aids Program:
VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range (VOR) with Distance 5,000,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
Measuring Equipment (DME)..................................
Instrument Landing System (ILS)--Establish.................. 5,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) for GPS................ 95,000,000 96,000,000 92,000,000
Runway Visual Range (RVR)................................... 5,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Approach Lighting System Improvement Program (ALSIP)........ 5,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Distance Measuring Equipment (DME).......................... 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Visual NAVAIDS--Establish/Expand............................ 3,400,000 3,500,000 3,500,000
Instrument Flight Procedures Automation (IFPA).............. 2,200,000 7,100,000 7,100,000
Navigation and Landing Aids--Service Life Extension Program 7,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000
(SLEP).....................................................
VASI Replacement--Replace with Precision Approach Path 8,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Indicator..................................................
GPS Civil Requirements...................................... 19,000,000 40,000,000 15,000,000
Runway Safety Areas--Navigational Mitigation................ 25,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Landing and Navigational Aids Programs......... 184,600,000 210,100,000 181,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Other ATC Facilities Programs:
Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring................ ,400,000 6,600,000 6,600,000
Unstaffed Infrastructure Sustainment........................ 18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000
Aircraft Related Equipment Program.......................... 11,700,000 10,100,000 10,100,000
Airport Cable Loop Systems--Sustained Support............... 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Alaskan Satellite Telecommunications Infrastructure (ASTI).. 15,500,000 6,800,000 6,800,000
Facilities Decommissioning.................................. 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support................... 77,581,000 85,000,000 77,581,000
Aircraft Fleet Modernization................................ 9,000,000 2,100,000 2,100,000
FAA Employee Housing and Life Safety Shelter System Service. 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Other ATC Facilities Programs.................. 149,681,000 141,100,000 133,681,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Activity 2.................................... 1,406,731,000 1,467,770,000 1,421,951,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Activity 3--Non-Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment:
a. Support Equipment:
Hazardous Materials Management.............................. 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000
Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS)...................... 30,100,000 15,800,000 15,800,000
Logistics Support Systems and Facilities (LSSF)............. 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
National Air Space (NAS) Recovery Communications (RCOM)..... 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000
Facility Security Risk Management........................... 16,000,000 14,200,000 14,200,000
Information Security........................................ 15,200,000 14,000,000 14,000,000
System Approach for Safety Oversight (SASO)................. 23,600,000 23,000,000 23,000,000
Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment (ASKME).... 17,200,000 12,800,000 12,800,000
Data Center Optimization.................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Aerospace Medical Equipment Needs (AMEN).................... 10,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS).... .............. 15,000,000 15,000,000
National Test Equipment Program............................. .............. 2,000,000 2,000,000
Mobile Assets Management Program............................ .............. 1,700,000 1,700,000
Aerospace Medicine Safety Information Systems (AMSIS)....... .............. 3,000,000 3,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Support Equipment.............................. 155,100,000 147,500,000 147,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Training, Equipment and Facilities:
Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization............ 16,500,000 12,500,000 12,500,000
Distance Learning........................................... 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Training, Equipment and Facilities............. 18,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Activity 3.................................... 173,100,000 161,500,000 161,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 4--Facilities and Equipment Mission Support:
a. System Support and Services:
System Engineering and Development Support.................. 32,900,000 35,000,000 35,000,000
Program Support Leases...................................... 40,000,000 40,900,000 40,900,000
Logistics Support Services (LSS)............................ 11,700,000 11,500,000 11,500,000
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center Leases.................... 17,000,000 17,500,000 17,500,000
Transition Engineering Support.............................. 13,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000
Technical Support Services Contract (TSSC).................. 22,000,000 23,000,000 23,000,000
Resource Tracking Program (RTP)............................. 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD)..... 78,000,000 70,000,000 75,000,000
Aeronautical Information Management Program................. 20,200,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) Moves..................... 1,500,000 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total Activity 4........................................ 240,300,000 217,900,000 222,900,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Activity 5--Personnel and Related Expenses:
Personnel and Related Expenses.............................. 475,000,000 480,000,000 480,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total All Activities.................................... 2,730,731,000 2,850,000,000 2,749,596,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

Next Generation Air Transportation System Transformational
Programs.--The Committee recognizes FAA's NextGen
transformational programs are critical to its overall plans to
change the way air traffic is managed.
The DOT Office of Inspector General recently reported on
the status of the transformational programs and highlighted
that FAA's approach to approving small segments of complex
NextGen programs has some drawbacks. There is no question that
segmenting programs can reduce risk to the Government, but such
segmentation does not provide a crosswalk for how key programs
align with FAA's plans for delivering benefits. The IG report
shows the extraordinarily complex interdependencies between
programs and the essential roles FAA automation programs, like
ERAM, play in executing NextGen. The Committee urges FAA to
follow through on its commitment to address the IG report's
recommendations. The Committee is particularly interested in
ensuring that FAA follows through on the IG's recommendation to
establish--and use--an integrated master schedule for managing
NextGen investments.
NextGen--Systems Development.--The Committee recommendation
includes $55,000,000 for NextGen--systems development, which is
$6,000,000 below the budget request and $30,000,000 below the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
NextGen Future Facilities.--The Committee recommends
$36,415,000 for the NextGen Future Facilities initiative, which
is $58,585,000 below the budget request and $21,415,000 above
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. These funds will be used to
fund pre-construction activities related to the Liberty
Integrated Control Facility. This Committee is aware that this
is the first step in FAA's long-term plan to realign and
consolidate its air traffic facility network into large,
integrated facilities that could fundamentally change the way
FAA operates and manages the National Airspace System. However,
this plan is only in its initial stages. The FAA has provided
limited details regarding how this new facility will improve
productivity, reduce agency costs, and improve the flow of air
traffic. The Committee looks forward to receiving a more
detailed and well justified plan for this new facility in the
coming months. The Committee also looks forward to receiving
information on the long-term cost savings associated with the
potential elimination of outdated, inefficient, and obsolete
facilities.
Performance-Based Navigation.--The Committee provides
$41,200,000 for Performance Based Navigation/RNAV/RNP. This is
a $5,000,000 increase above the budget request and $12,000,000
above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The Committee has
strongly supported the accelerated development of Performance
Based Navigation (PBN) procedures and processes, and continues
to have a strong interest in using PBN to provide substantial,
near-term NextGen benefits to users of the NAS. The Committee
is encouraged by the enactment of Section 213 of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (PL 112-95), which
requires FAA to develop performance-based metrics and
environmental streamlining procedures to further accelerate RNP
and RNAV flight paths at a minimum of 70 commercial airports
throughout the NAS, including through the use of third parties
to support the development of procedures.
The Committee directs the FAA to fully utilize the tools
provided in Section 213, including the use of third parties and
categorical exclusions, so that efficient RNP and RNAV
procedures can be produced in sufficient quantities in order to
meet the demand that exists within the NAS for these types of
procedures. The Committee recommends $5,000,000 to continue the
Third Party Procedure development program to utilize qualified
third parties to design, deploy, and maintain public use RNP
procedures at airports across the country where aircraft flying
RNP procedures would achieve measureable benefit.
The Committee also directs the FAA to provide a detailed
status update on its progress in meeting Congressional mandates
under Section 213, including the estimated fuel and carbon
dioxide emissions savings from any new RNP or RNAV procedure
designed or implemented in 2012, to the Committees on
Appropriations, by March 1, 2013. This report should also
address the use of third parties and identify the flight
procedures developed, or in the process of being developed, by
them.

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

EN ROUTE PROGRAMS

En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM).--The Committee
provides $154,000,000 for the en route modernization program
(ERAM). This level is equal to the budget request and
$1,000,000 below the level provided in fiscal year 2012. ERAM
is the FAA's program to replace the FAA's en route host
computer system, its backup system, and other related display
system and radar position processor infrastructure.
ERAM is a foundational component of NextGen, and it is
critical to meeting FAA's goals for increasing airspace
capacity and reducing flight delays. FAA originally planned to
deploy ERAM at 20 of its en-route facilities by the end of
2010. However, due to software problems at the first two key
sites, Salt Lake City and Seattle, FAA has been forced to delay
original deployment estimates by nearly four years. The program
has also seen cost overruns of $330 million in prior years.
FAA has taken a number of steps to improve the
predictability of the schedule and costs of ERAM, and the ERAM
system is now in use on a limited basis at nine locations.
Nevertheless, the cost and timeframes for completing ERAM
remain unclear. There are important lessons learned from ERAM
that FAA needs to address to better manage its NextGen
portfolio and reduce risks when deploying software intensive
systems. These include better expectation setting for the
controller workforce, addressing shortcomings in testing at the
FAA Technical Center, bolstering Government Acceptance, and
effectively using contract incentives for both development and
implementation. The Committee will continue to monitor the
program closely and looks forward to the final report from the
DOT Inspector General on ERAM, which was requested by this
Committee in fiscal year 2011.
ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements.--The
Committee recommendation includes $40,000,000 for ARTCC
Building Improvements, which is $1,000,000 below the fiscal
year 2012 enacted level and $6,000,000 below the budget
request.

TERMINAL PROGRAMS

Terminal Automation Modernization/Eeplacement Program (TAMR
Phase 3).--The Committee recommendation includes $153,000,000
for the terminal automation modernization and replacement
program which is equal to the budget request and $44,250,000
above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Phase 3 of the TAMR
program is intended to modernize or replace terminal automation
systems at TRACON facilities around the country. Last December,
FAA's Joint Resource Council (JRC) made a final investment
decision to implement the STARS system at eleven ARTS IIIE
facilities by 2017. Additionally, FAA is expected to make an
investment decision later this year to upgrade or replace as
many as 94 ARTS IIE systems. Replacing the automation systems
at these terminal facilities is a major undertaking. FAA must
determine how these facilities fit into the agency's future
facilities plan and effectively manage the cost and scheduling
risks inherent in a program of this magnitude. The Committee
directs the FAA to provide a plan by March 1, 2013 to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations which will include (1)
costs and timelines for installing new systems; (2) how new
automated controller tools will be introduced; and (3) how long
the older systems will need to be sustained.
Runway Status Lights.--The Committee provides $35,250,000
for the Runway Status Lights program, the same as the budget
request and $5,450,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted
level. This funding will continue to support the design,
production, and installation of runway status lights (RWSL) at
busy airports. Runway status lights are a fully automated
system that gives pilots and vehicle operators a direct visual
alert when it is unsafe to enter or cross a runway. The RWSL
program responds to a safety recommendation from the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to ``implement a safety
system that provides direct warning capability to flight
crews.'' The Committee strongly supports RWSLs as an additional
layer of safety to reduce runway incursions and encourages the
FAA to review the suitability of deploying this critical safety
enhancing technology at airports being equipped with the
Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (ASSC) system. The
Committee directs the FAA to provide a letter report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by April 15, 2013
on the merits and costs associated with installing RWSLs at
ASSC-equipped airports.
Tower Flight Data Manager.--The Committee provides
$35,600,000 for the Tower Flight Data Manager (TFDM) program.
This level is $2,000,000 below the budget request and
$35,600,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAMS

Weather Camera Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $3,000,000 for the Alaska Weather Camera program,
which is $1,400,000 below the budget request and $1,800,000
below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

LANDING AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS

Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).--The Committee
recommendation includes $92,000,000 for the wide area
augmentation system program, which is $4,000,000 below the
budget request and $3,000,000 below the fiscal year 2012
enacted level.
GPS Civil Requirements.--The Committee recommendation
includes $15,000,000 for GPS Civil Requirements, which is
$25,000,000 below the budget request and $4,000,000 below the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level. While the Committee recognizes
the significance of FAA's contribution to GPS, there is a
significant unobligated balance at the Department of Defense.

OTHER AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES PROGRAMS

Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support.--The Committee
recommendation includes $77,581,000 for Electrical Power
Systems, which is $7,419,000 below the budget request and the
same as the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

MISSION SUPPORT

Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development (CAASD).--
The Committee provides $75,000,000 for CAASD which is
$5,000,000 above the budget request and $3,000,000 below the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level. As FAA continues to develop the
solution sets for NextGen, there is an ongoing need for
research and systems engineering support to supplement and
validate the FAA's internal capabilities. CAASD has been
instrumental in providing technical and operational analytical
support for a number of key initiatives including performance-
based navigation, airspace design, NAS-wide information system
security, and communications modernization.

PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $480,000,000 for personnel and
related expenses which is an increase of $5,000,000 above the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level and the same level as the budget
request. This appropriation finances the personnel, travel and
related expenses of the FAA's facilities and equipment
workforce.

BILL LANGUAGE

Capital Investment Plan.--The bill continues to require the
submission of a five-year capital investment plan.

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $167,556,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 180,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 175,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +7,444,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -5,000,000

This appropriation provides funding for long-term research,
engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic
control system and to raise the level of aviation safety, as
authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the
Federal Aviation Act. The appropriation also finances the
research, engineering and development needed to establish or
modify federal air regulations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $175,000,000, an increase of
$7,444,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and a
decrease of $5,000,000 below the budget request.
The Committee recommendation includes the following funding
levels for Research, Engineering, and Development programs:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Program -------------------------------- Committee
2012 enacted 2013 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Research and Safety........................................ $7,158,000 $7,667,000 $7,667,000
Propulsion and Fuel Systems..................................... 2,300,000 2,882,000 2,882,000
Advanced Materials/Structural Safety............................ 2,534,000 2,569,000 2,569,000
Aircraft Icing--Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety....... 5,404,000 6,644,000 6,644,000
Continued Airworthiness......................................... 11,600,000 13,202,000 12,103,000
Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research............... 1,147,000 1,691,000 1,691,000
Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors......... 6,162,000 5,416,000 5,416,000
System Safety Management........................................ 10,027,000 11,345,000 10,641,000
Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors.......... 10,364,000 10,014,000 10,014,000
Aeromedical Research............................................ 11,000,000 9,895,000 9,895,000
Weather Program................................................. 16,043,000 15,539,000 15,539,000
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research.............................. 3,504,000 5,901,000 7,000,000
NextGen--Alternative Fuels for General Aviation................. 2,071,000 1,995,000 1,995,000
Joint Planning and Development Office........................... 5,000,000 12,000,000 7,000,000
NextGen--Wake Turbulence........................................ 10,674,000 10,350,000 10,350,000
NextGen--Air Ground Integration Human Factors................... 7,000,000 10,172,000 10,172,000
NextGen--Self Separation Human Factors.......................... 3,500,000 7,796,000 3,500,000
NextGen--Weather Technology in the Cockpit...................... 8,000,000 4,826,000 4,826,000
Environment and Energy.......................................... 15,074,000 14,776,000 14,776,000
NextGen--Environmental Research--Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, 23,500,000 19,861,000 24,861,000
and Metrics....................................................
System Planning and Resource Management......................... 1,717,000 1,757,000 1,757,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility.......... 3,777,000 3,702,000 3,702,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 167,556,000 180,000,000 175,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NextGen--Alternative Fuels for General Aviation.--The
Committee provides $1,995,000 for alternative fuels research
for general aviation, which is the same as the budget request
and $76,000 below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Among
other research activities, these funds will be used to complete
initial studies on the use of high aromatic additives for
octane enhancement and on the assessment criteria for the use
of bio-mass derived fuels. The Committee understands that the
Unleaded Avgas Transition Aviation Rulemaking Committee
recently issued recommendations to ensure the development of
and transition to an unleaded avgas with the least impact upon
the existing fleet of general aviation piston engine aircraft.
The Committee looks forward to the FAA's response, including
agency plans to implement the recommendations and devote the
resources required to transition in a way that effectively
balances environmental improvement with aviation safety,
technical challenges, and economic impact.
NextGen Environmental Research--Aircraft Technologies,
Fuels and Metrics.--The Committee provides $24,861,000 for the
FAA's NextGen environmental research aircraft technologies,
fuels and metrics program, which is $5,000,000 above the budget
request and $1,361,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted
level. The FAA's continuous, lower energy, emissions, and noise
program (CLEEN) has supported a number of research initiatives
that will help advance the development of more efficient
engines, airframes and alternative fuels. The Committee
supports the FAA's efforts to research, develop, and test these
technologies, given that fuel costs continue to consume the
largest portion of airline operating budgets and contribute to
higher airfares for the traveling public. The increase above
the budget request is provided to support additional research
and testing of technologies and alternative fuels that offer
the greatest potential for improving overall fuel efficiency
and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO).--The
Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the JPDO, a decrease of
$5,000,000 below the budget request and a $2,000,000 increase,
or 40 percent, above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The
JPDO was established to develop a plan for NextGen in the 2025
timeframe and to coordinate Federal research to modernize the
Nation's air transport system. Regardless of various FAA
reorganizations, FAA needs to establish a clearly defined role
for the JPDO and set expectations for how it will leverage
research conducted at other Federal agencies, including the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department
of Defense, the Department of Commerce and the Department of
Homeland Security. The Committee directs the FAA to provide the
Committee with a quarterly report on its progress in
coordinating research with other agencies and leveraging
federal dollars to advance the goals of NextGen.
Rescission.--The Committee recommendation includes a
rescission of $26,183,998, as requested by the President.

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012... $3,435,000,000 $3,350,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.. 3,400,000,000 2,424,000,000
Recommended in the bill........... 3,400,000,000 3,350,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year -35,000,000 - - -
2012.............................
Budget request, fiscal year - - - 926,000,000
2013.............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of
$3,400,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by
the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended.
This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred
pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on
obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and
development, noise compatibility and planning, the military
airport program, reliever airports, airport program
administration, and other authorized activities.

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The bill includes a limitation on obligations of
$3,350,000,000 for fiscal year 2013, which is $926,000,000
above the budget request and the same as the fiscal year 2012
enacted level.

ADMINISTRATION AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS

Airport Administrative Expenses.--Within the overall
obligation limitation, the bill includes $105,000,000 for the
administration of the airports program by the FAA. This funding
level is equal to the budget request and $2,000,000 above the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The increase is provided to
enhance investigations of airport revenue diversion.
Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP).--The
recommendation includes $15,000,000 which is the same level as
the budget request and the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The
ACRP was established through Section 712 of the Vision 100--
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176) to
identify shared problem areas facing airports that can be
solved through applied research but are not adequately
addressed by existing Federal research programs.
Airport Technology Research.--The recommendation includes a
minimum of $29,300,000 for the FAA's airport technology
research program which is equal to the budget request and
$50,000,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The funds
provided for this program are utilized to conduct research in
the areas of airport pavement; airport marking and lighting;
airport rescue and firefighting; airport planning and design;
wildlife hazard mitigation; and visual guidance.
Airport Revenue Diversion.--The Airport and Airway
Improvement Act of 1982 requires that revenue generated at a
public-use airport is used for the airport's capital and
operating expenses--except in a small number of cases in which
grandfathered airports already had a revenue sharing agreement.
After a series of revenue diversions were uncovered at airports
across the country, the FAA Authorization of 1994 reiterated
that using airport revenue for unauthorized purposes is
illegal. In addition to violating U.S. law, revenue diversion
undermines the sustainability of airports, which are critical
to U.S. economic competitiveness and the international movement
of passengers and goods.
The Committee is concerned about the potential ongoing
revenue diversion at a number of airports across the country.
The Committee notes that airport revenues are intended, by law,
to be used for airport purposes and that the use of airport
revenues for non-airport purposes is unlawful, except in cases
where the airport's use of airport revenue for non-airport
purposes was ``grandfathered in'' by statute. The Committee
urges FAA to review its oversight of airport revenue diversion,
and determine if additional oversight is needed. If
appropriate, the FAA should consider reprogramming funds to
enhance revenue diversion enforcement within the Office of the
Associate Administrator for Airports. Further, the Committee
directs the FAA to require corrective action plan from an
airport within sixty days of any finding of revenue diversion.

BILL LANGUAGE

Runway Incursion Prevention Systems and Devices.--
Consistent with prior year appropriations Acts, the bill allows
funds under this limitation to be used for airports to procure
and install runway incursion prevention systems and devices.
Local Match.--As a result of H.R. 658, the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95), the
local match requirement for allowable costs at most small
airports doubled from 5 percent to 10 percent. The Committee is
concerned that this new requirement changed the rules mid-
stream for small airports that had started, but not completed,
safety and capacity projects before the FAA reauthorization
bill was enacted into law. The Committee has included language
that would allow small airports to continue to receive a 95
percent federal share for unfinished phased projects that were
underway before the FAA bill was enacted into law on February
14, 2012.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Section 110. The Committee retains a provision limiting the
number of technical workyears at the Center for Advanced
Aviation Systems Development to 600 in fiscal year 2011.
Section 111. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting
FAA from requiring airport sponsors to provide the agency
`without cost' building construction, maintenance, utilities
and expenses, or space in sponsor-owned buildings, except in
the case of certain specified exceptions.
Section 112. The Committee continues a provision allowing
reimbursement for fees collected and credited under 49 U.S.C.
45303.
Section 113. The Committee retains a provision allowing
reimbursement of funds for providing technical assistance to
foreign aviation authorities to be credited to the operations
account.
Section 114. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting
funds limited in this Act for the Airport Improvement Program
to be provided to an airport that refuses a request from the
Secretary of Transportation to use public space at the airport
for the purpose of conducting outreach on air passenger rights.
Section 115. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting
the FAA from paying Sunday premium pay except in those cases
where the individual actually worked on a Sunday.
Section 116. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting
FAA from using funds to purchase store gift cards or gift
certificates through a government-issued credit card.
Section 117. The Committee includes a provision that allows
airports experiencing the required level of boardings through
charter and scheduled air service to be eligible for funds
under 49 U.S.C. 47114(c).
Section 118. The Committee includes a provision that
requires approval from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Administration of the Department of Transportation for
retention bonuses for any FAA employee.
Section 119. The Committee includes a provision that limits
the cost-share required under the contract tower program to 20
percent.
Section 119A. The Committee includes a provision that
requires the Secretary to block the display of an owner or
operator's aircraft registration number in the Aircraft
Situational Display to Industry program, upon the request of an
owner or operator.
Section 119B. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting
funds to change weight restrictions or prior permission rules
at Teterboro Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey.

Federal Highway Administration

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides
financial assistance to the states to construct and improve
roads and highways. It also provides technical assistance to
other agencies and organizations involved in road building
activities. Title 23 of the United States Code and other
supporting statutes provide authority for the activities of the
FHWA. Funding is provided by contract authority, while program
levels are established by annual limitations on obligations, as
set forth in appropriations Acts.

AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

The most recent multi-year surface transportation
authorization Act, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),
expired on September 30, 2009. Since that time, the Congress
has enacted several short-term extensions that continued to
provide contract authority for the FHWA and other surface
transportation agencies under the same structure as SAFETEA-LU.
However, the current SAFETEA-LU extension ends June 30, 2012.
It is unclear what authorization law (or laws) will be
effective during fiscal year 2013. Conferees from the House and
Senate currently are working on surface transportation
authorization legislation. The Committee is in the unenviable
position of recommending appropriations for a program without
authorization.
The Committee therefore provides only minimal bill language
that sets the overall FHWA obligation limitation for fiscal
year 2013, contingent upon authorization. It is the Committee's
intention that appropriations made by this bill will be wholly
contingent on a reauthorization of the highway program and will
be distributed only in accordance with the new authorization
law.

THE PRESIDENT'S 2013 BUDGET REQUEST

The President's budget request once again pretends as
though Congress has enacted the Administration's transportation
authorization proposal into law, even though the Administration
has never publicly released its proposal or transmitted it to
Congress, as has been customary since the Eisenhower
Administration. As such, the FHWA budget request is a fictional
document, on which numerous staff hours and government
resources were expended. In short, it is a waste of taxpayer
dollars.
The budget request and accompanying budget justifications
are the primary means by which Congress learns about agency
budgetary priorities. This year and last year, FHWA's budget
justifications were almost useless. Such fiction is of no help
to the Committee in assessing program needs and priorities for
fiscal year 2013. With the exception of the section on FHWA's
administrative expenses, the budget justification contains no
pertinent information or recommendations the Committee may use
to make meaningful decisions. The Committee, however, notes
with appreciation that the FHWA budget staff is very helpful,
capable, and responsive to the Committee.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total program level of
$39,882,583,000 for the activities of the FHWA in fiscal year
2013, contingent upon reauthorization. This amount is
$1,662,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 (due to the lack of
disaster funds) and $2,686,417,000 below the budget request.
Included within the recommended amount is an obligation
limitation of $39,143,583,000 and $739,000,000 in contract
authority that is exempt from the obligation limitation.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations, compared with the fiscal year 2012 enacted
levels and the fiscal year 2013 budget request for FHWA:

(In thousands of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program -------------------------------------- Recommended in
2012 enacted 2013 request* the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways (obligation limitation)........... $39,143,583 $41,830,000 $39,143,583
Exempt contract authority.............................. 739,000 739,000 739,000
Liquidation of contract authorization.................. 39,882,583 42,569,000 39,882,583
Emergency relief (disaster appropriation).............. 1,662,000 - - - - - -
--------------------------------------------------------
Total program level................................ 41,544,583 42,569,000 39,882,583
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The budget request treats all highways spending as mandatory. The Committee, however, treats the requested
amounts as though they are subject to the obligation limitation (except the contract authority traditionally
exempted from the obligation limitation), as in past years.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $412,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 437,780,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 392,855,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -19,145,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -44,925,000

The limitation on administrative expenses caps the amount,
from within the limitation on obligations, that FHWA may spend
on salaries and expenses necessary to conduct and administer
the federal-aid highway program, highway-related research, and
most other federal highway programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $392,855,000,
which is $19,145,000 below fiscal year 2012, and $44,925,000
below the budget request. The recommended amount is equal to
the most recent authorized level, which reflects a reduction in
administrative expenses proportionate to the modest reduction
experienced in the overall program in fiscal year 2012.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $39,143,583,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 41,830,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 39,143,583,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -2,686,417,000

The federal-aid highways program is designed to aid in the
development, operations and management of an intermodal
transportation system that is economically efficient and
environmentally sound, to provide the foundation for the nation
to compete in the global economy, and to move people and goods
safely.
There are approximately four million miles of public roads
in the United States and about 600,000 bridges. Currently, the
federal government provides grants to states to assist in
financing the construction and preservation of about 994,500
miles (24 percent) of these roads, which represents the
National Highway System plus key feeder and collector routes.
Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 85 percent of
total U.S. highway traffic.
Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a
federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain
ownership of and responsibility for the maintenance, repair and
new construction of roads. State highway departments have the
authority to initiate federal-aid projects, subject to FHWA
approval of the plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The
Federal government provides financial support, on a
reimbursable basis, for construction and repair through
matching grants, the terms of which vary with the type of road.
Under SAFETEA-LU, federal-aid highways funds have been made
available to the states through a mix of ``apportioned
programs,'' which are distributed using a formula provided in
law, and ``allocated programs,'' which are distributed based on
criteria set in law and which allow for some discretion on the
part of the Secretary in selecting recipients.
All programs included within the federal-aid highways
program are financed from the highway trust fund and most are
distributed via apportionments and allocations to states. The
federal-aid highways program is funded by contract authority,
and liquidating cash appropriations are subsequently provided
to fund outlays resulting from obligations incurred under
contract authority.
The Committee sets, through the annual appropriations
process, an overall limitation on the total contract authority
that can be obligated under the federal-aid highways program in
a given year. The Committee also provides direction and other
guidance regarding some of the programs that operate under this
overall limitation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations for
the federal-aid highways program of $39,143,583,000, contingent
upon authorization. This amount is the same as fiscal year 2012
and $2,686,417,000 below the budget request.
Because the structure of the federal-aid highways program
for fiscal year 2013 is unknown at this time due to lack of
authorizing legislation, the Committee includes no detailed
summaries of particular programs under SAFETEA-LU.
Limitation on Transportation Research.--The Committee
continues bill language limiting the amount the FHWA may spend
on transportation research and technology contract programs.
Within the overall obligation limitation for federal-aid
highways, the Committee recommends an obligation limitation for
transportation research of $429,800,000, which is equal to
fiscal year 2012 and the budget request.
Under SAFETEA-LU, the transportation research and
technology contract programs include: surface transportation
research, training and education, university transportation
research, and intelligent transportation systems research.
Funding for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) also
is included within this limitation, although the BTS will be
housed within the Office of the Secretary.
Because future reauthorization actions may change the
structure of existing research programs, the Committee does not
provide a detailed breakdown of transportation research program
activities.
Loan Fees.--The Committee continues bill language allowing
the Secretary to charge and collect fees from the applicant for
a direct loan, guaranteed loan, or line of credit to cover the
cost of the financial and legal analyses performed on behalf of
the Department. These fees are not subject to the obligation
limitation or the limitation on administrative expenses set for
the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
program under section 608 of title 23, United States Code.
State Programs.--The Committee directs the Secretary to
provide states with as much discretion as possible in
administering their state surface transportation formula funds.
State departments of transportation can best allocate resources
to satisfy their states' individual and unique surface
transportation needs.
Public-private Partnerships.--In instances where the
Secretary exercises discretion in project selection, the
Committee directs the Secretary to give strong consideration to
infrastructure projects funded through public-private
partnership investment.
Corrosion.--The Committee notes corrosion detrimentally
impacts surface transportation infrastructure and is an
economic burden and safety hazard. The Committee directs the
FHWA to report to the Committees on Appropriations within 180
days of enactment on the costs and benefits associated with
developing a comprehensive corrosion analysis and mitigation
tool to prevent, predict, and control corrosion-related
problems in highway transportation.
Geosynthetics.--The Committee directs the FHWA to continue
assessing the use of geosynthetics in highway and civil
infrastructure applications, especially potential cost savings
and environmental benefits. The Committee also encourages FHWA
to review and consider the recommendations in GAO's upcoming
report on geosynthetics and the associated life-cycle costs of
incorporating innovative materials in pavements.

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $39,882,583,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 42,569,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 39,882,583,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -2,686,417,000

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $39,882,583,000, which is the same as fiscal year 2012 and
$2,686,417,000 below the budget request. This is the amount
required to pay the outstanding obligations of the highway
program at levels provided in this Act and prior appropriations
Acts.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Section 120. The Committee continues a provision that
distributes obligation authority among federal-aid highways
programs.
Section 121. The Committee continues a provision that
credits funds received by the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics to the federal-aid highways account.
Section 122. The Committee continues a provision that
provides requirements for any waiver of the Buy American Act.
Section 123. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting tolling in Texas, with exceptions.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) was
established within the Department of Transportation (DOT) by
Congress through the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of
1999. FMCSA's mission is to promote safe commercial motor
vehicle operations and reduce truck and bus crashes. FMCSA
works with federal, state, and local entities, the motor
carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and the public
to further its mission.
FMCSA resources are used to prevent and mitigate commercial
vehicle accidents through regulation, enforcement, stakeholder
training, technological innovation, and improved information
systems. FMCSA also is responsible for enforcing Federal motor
carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations for all
commercial vehicles entering the United States along its
southern and northern borders.
FMCSA's current activities are authorized under an
extension of SAFETEA-LU, which expires June 30, 2012. For
purposes of determining authorized funding levels, the
Committee assumes another extension of SAFETEA-LU through
fiscal year 2013. The Committee's recommendations for FMCSA are
contingent upon reauthorization.

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of
Contract Limitation on
Authorization Obligations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012... $247,724,000 ($247,724,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2013 . 250,000,000 (250,000,000)
Recommended in the bill........... 244,144,000 (244,144,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year -3,580,000 (-3,580,000)
2012.............................
Budget request, fiscal year -5,856,000 (-5,856,000)
2013.............................

This limitation controls FMCSA spending on salaries,
operating expenses, and research. It provides resources to
support motor carrier safety program activities and to maintain
the agency's administrative infrastructure. This funding
supports nationwide motor carrier safety and consumer
enforcement efforts, including the Compliance, Safety, and
Accountability Program, regulation and enforcement of household
goods transport, and federal safety enforcement at the U.S.
borders. These resources also fund regulatory development and
implementation, information management, research and
technology, grants to States and local partners, safety
education and outreach, and the safety and consumer telephone
hotline.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $247,724,000 in liquidating cash
for motor carrier safety operations and programs. The Committee
also recommends limiting obligations from the highway trust
fund to $247,724,000 for motor carrier safety operations and
programs in fiscal year 2013. These levels are $3,580,000 below
fiscal year 2012 and $5,856,000 below the budget request. They
are the maximum authorized levels, assuming current, annualized
SAFETEA-LU levels, and they are contingent upon
reauthorization.
Within the amounts provided for operations and programs,
the Committee recommends $1,000,000 for commercial motor
vehicle operator's grants, which provide commercial motor
vehicle operators with critical safety training. This amount is
the same as fiscal year 2012 and the budget request. It is the
full authorized level, assuming current, annualized SAFETEA-LU
levels.
The Committee continues bill language making funds for the
research and technology program available until September 30,
2015. The Committee also continues bill language prohibiting
any funds relating to outreach and education from being
transferred to another agency.
Chameleon Carriers.--The Committee directs the FMCSA to use
$5,000,000 of the funds provided for operations and programs to
implement a risk-based monitoring of all motor carriers for
chameleon carrier characteristics, as recommended in the recent
GAO report, GAO-12-364, ``New Applicant Reviews Should Expand
to Identify Freight Carriers Evading Detection.'' FMCSA
estimates this amount is sufficient to complete the initial
start-up of such a screening tool, including early evaluations,
algorithm development, capability implementation, post-
implementation evaluations, and 5 FTE to support the effort.
FMCSA anticipates it will take one year to implement the
capability to screen all carriers using a risk-based approach,
and the Committee directs such capability to be in place by the
end of fiscal year 2013.
A chameleon carrier is a motor carrier that was once put
out-of-service due to safety violations, but that
``reincarnates'' itself under a new corporate identity to
resume business. FMCSA needs better ways to identify and put
out-of-service permanently such carriers. The GAO report noted
FMCSA currently monitors all household goods and passenger bus
motor carriers for chameleon carrier traits, but such sectors
represent only 2% of the motor carrier market. The vast
majority of motor carriers are freight carriers. GAO and the
DOT Inspector General found that FMCSA can expand its new-
entrant audits to the freight sector, but only if it uses risk-
based data to target its resources to the riskiest new
entrants.
GAO suggests such risk-based audits could be accomplished
using as few as 2-3 FTE, in addition to the current 6 FTE, by
using a data-based algorithm to correctly identify the riskiest
carriers. The Committee fully supports this type of risk-based
approach, as it makes the best use of taxpayer resources. The
Committee also directs FMCSA, in implementing this risk-based
approach over the next year, to determine the most cost-
effective method of collecting and updating carrier data,
including solutions available in the private sector. The
Committee notes FMCSA's ongoing efforts to consolidate its
databases may further assist the effort to begin risk-based
monitoring of all new entrant motor carriers.
Compliance, Safety, and Accountability.--The Committee is
concerned about FMCSA's proposed new scoring system in the
Compliance, Safety, and Accountability (CSA) program, which is
the primary means by which FMCSA oversees motor carriers
currently in operation. A wide range of industry groups are
concerned that the new CSA scores do not actually correlate to
risk and may inaccurately portray carriers in a variety of
ways. The Committee directs FMCSA to increase its outreach to
industry to address these concerns before finalizing the CSA
scoring system. The lack of correlation between a score and
actual risk is a very serious concern and should be addressed
with public participation.

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....... $307,000,000 ($307,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...... 330,000,000 (330,000,000)
Recommended in the bill............... 307,000,000 (307,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012... - - - - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.. -23,000,000 (-23,000,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FMCSA's motor carrier safety grants were authorized by the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and
continued by SAFETEA-LU and subsequent extensions of SAFETEA-
LU.
These grants are used to support compliance reviews in the
states, identify and apprehend traffic violators, conduct
roadside inspections, and conduct safety audits of new entrant
carriers. Additionally, grants are provided to states for
safety enforcement at the U.S. borders, improvement of state
commercial driver's license oversight activities, and
improvements in linking states' motor vehicle registration
systems and carrier safety data.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $307,000,000 in liquidating cash
for this program, as well as a $307,000,000 limitation on
obligations, in fiscal year 2013. These levels are the same as
fiscal year 2012 and $23,000,000 below the budget request. They
reflect the full authorized levels for each grant within this
account, assuming the current, annualized SAFETEA-LU program
levels. The Committee's recommendations are contingent upon
reauthorization.
The Committee recommends the following obligation
limitations for grants funded under this account:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP)...... ($212,000,000)
Commercial driver's license improvements program..... (30,000,000)
Border enforcement grants............................ (32,000,000)
Performance and registration information system (5,000,000)
management program..................................
Commercial vehicle information systems and networks (25,000,000)
deployment..........................................
Safety data improvement grants....................... (3,000,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Entrant Audits.--Of the funds made available for the
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Grants, the Committee
recommends $29,000,000 for audits of new entrant motor
carriers, which is the same as fiscal year 2012, $3,000,000
below the budget request, and the full authorized level
assuming extension of current law.
FMCSA requires all new entrants to pass a safety audit
within the first 18 months of operations in order to receive
permanent DOT registration. With the expansion of such vetting
to the freight sector over the next year, the Committee expects
to see improvement in the agency's ability to detect and shut
down chameleon carriers.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Sec. 130. The Committee continues language subjecting the
funds appropriated in this Act to the terms and conditions
included in prior appropriations Acts regarding Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
was established in March of 1970 to administer motor vehicle
and highway safety programs. It was the successor agency to the
National Highway Safety Bureau, which was housed in the Federal
Highway Administration.
NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and
reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes, through
education, research, safety standards and enforcement activity.
To accomplish these goals, NHTSA establishes and enforces
safety performance standards for motor vehicles and motor
vehicle equipment, investigates safety defects in motor
vehicles, and conducts research on driver behavior and traffic
safety.
NHTSA provides grants and technical assistance to state and
local governments to enable them to conduct effective local
highway safety programs. Together with state and local
partners, NHTSA works to reduce the threat of drunk and
impaired drivers and to promote use of safety belts, helmets,
child safety seats, airbags, and other life-saving devices.
NHTSA establishes and ensures compliance with fuel economy
standards, investigates odometer fraud, establishes and
enforces vehicle anti-theft regulations, and provides consumer
information on a variety of motor vehicle safety topics.
NHTSA's current programs were authorized by the following
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.); (4) the Transportation
Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD)
Act; and (5) the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
SAFETEA-LU expired on September 30, 2009. The Congress
enacted many short-term extensions of SAFETEA-LU, with the
latest extension ending June 30, 2012. In the absence of a
long-term authorization bill for surface transportation
programs, including highway safety programs, the Committee
assumes the continuation of the current program structure. The
Committee's recommendations with respect to funds provided from
the Highway Trust Fund are contingent upon reauthorization.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $776,188,000, which is $23,786,000
below fiscal year 2012 and $204,812,000 below the budget
request. The decrease is attributable to the expiration of the
Seat Belt Performance Grants, which were funded at $48,500,000
in fiscal year 2012. The Committee's recommendation maintains
all other grants at current funding levels and increases
operational resources by $24,714,000 in fiscal year 2013. The
following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2012 enacted 2013 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research (general fund and highway trust fund) $249,646,000 $338,000,000 $274,360,000
Highway traffic safety grants (highway trust fund)........... 550,328,000 643,000,000 501,828,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 799,974,000 981,000,000 776,188,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee recommends funding levels that provide NHTSA
with sufficient resources to continue its critical work
improving the safety of passenger travel on the nation's
highway system. The Committee commends NHTSA and its partners
for the 3% decrease in highway fatalities in 2010, bringing
highway fatalities to a new record low. The Committee
encourages NHTSA and the network of researchers and public
safety personnel to continue their work to enhance safety and
reduce fatalities.

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Highway trust
(General fund) fund) Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012.............................. $140,146,000 $109,500,000 $249,646,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013............................. - - - 338,000,000 338,000,000
Recommended in the bill...................................... 152,000,000 122,360,000 274,360,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012.......................... 11,854,000 12,860,000 24,714,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013......................... +152,000,000 -215,640,000 -63,640,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The operations and research appropriations support
research, demonstrations, technical assistance, and national
leadership for highway safety programs. Many of these programs
are conducted in partnership with state and local governments,
the private sector, universities, research units, and various
safety associations and organizations. These programs address
alcohol and drug countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection,
traffic law enforcement, emergency medical and trauma care
systems, traffic records and licensing, traffic safety
evaluations, motorcycle safety, pedestrian and bicycle safety,
pupil transportation, distracted and drowsy driving, young and
older driver safety programs, and development of improved
accident investigation procedures.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $274,360,000, which is $24,714,000
above fiscal year 2012 and $63,640,000 below the budget
request. Of this total, $152,000,000 is from the General Fund
for vehicle safety programs and $122,360,000 is from the
Highway Trust Fund for behavioral highway safety operations and
research. The Committee rejects the Administration's request to
fund the vehicle safety portion out of the highway trust fund,
rather than the general fund.
The Committee recognizes that NHTSA's operational resources
have been fairly flat for several years and that there are
several areas that could use additional resources at this time.
However, NHTSA's budget request is full of new funding requests
that cannot be accommodated. Therefore, the Committee provides
specific instructions below as to which activities are approved
to receive additional resources.
Vehicle Safety.--The Committee directs NHTSA to spend
additional funds provided in fiscal year 2013 on the following
activities in these approximate amounts:
$5,000,000--New Car Assessment Program.
$7,000,000--Vehicle Electronics Systems Safety.
The Committee provides an additional $5,000,000 for the New
Car Assessment Program (NCAP), which is the primary means by
which new vehicles are evaluated by NHTSA for safety
performance. NCAP is responsible for the star safety ratings
that inform consumers purchasing vehicles. The Committee
provides funds to improve NCAP, so it once again covers 85% of
the new vehicle market.
The Committee provides an additional $7,000,000 for the
Vehicle Electronic Systems Safety initiative. Electronic
systems are becoming increasingly important in vehicle design
and manufacturing. NHTSA has identified advanced electronic
control systems as an emerging technology in need of greater
study and understanding. The Committee provides resources to
evaluate the safety of these critical new systems.
Highway Safety.--The Committee directs NHTSA to spend the
additional funds provided in fiscal year 2013 on the following
activities in these approximate amounts:
$2,000,000--Impaired Driving Countermeasures.
$2,000,000--Occupant Protection Initiative.
$5,000,000--Highway Safety Research.
$3,000,000--Core Competency and Training Program.
The Committee provides $2,000,000 in additional funding for
development of Impaired Driving Countermeasures, particularly
to support NHTSA's role in the implementation of ignition
interlock programs nationwide.
The Committee provides $2,000,000 in additional funding for
the Occupant Protection Initiative, particularly to support
renewal of the Click-It-Or-Ticket campaign and to further
improve effective use of seatbelts and child restraints.
The Committee provides $5,000,000 in additional funding for
the Highway Safety Research Program, which is a 67% increase
above fiscal years 2011 and 2012. This program covers all
research relating to unsafe behaviors that impact highway
safety, including for example alcohol-impaired driving, drug-
impaired driving, speeding, use of occupant protection devices,
distracted driving, driving by older and younger persons,
pedestrian behavior, and motorcycle driving. The Committee
notes NHTSA is in the best position to determine which
particular research projects have the greatest potential to
improve highway safety.
The Committee provides an additional $3,000,000 to support
NHTSA's Core Competency and Training Program for highway safety
professionals at the federal, state, and local levels. In past
years, NHTSA provided this critical training to highway safety
professionals by taking down its own operational resources,
thereby diverting funds from needed research and countermeasure
development. The Committee's recommendation folds this training
into the base for highway safety operations.
National Driver Register.--The Committee recommends funding
the National Driver Register (NDR) at the full authorized
amount of $4,116,000, from within the highway safety
operational funds. The NDR is a computerized database of
information regarding drivers with revoked or suspended
licenses and drivers convicted of serious traffic violations.
The NDR allows state motor vehicle administrators to
communicate effectively with other states to identify such
drivers.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
contract Limitation on
authorization obligation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012... $550,328,000 ($550,328,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.. 643,000,000 (643,000,000)
Recommended in the bill........... 501,828,000 (501,828,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year -48,500,000 (-48,500,000)
2012.........................
Budget request, fiscal year -141,172,000 (-141,172,000)
2013.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The highway traffic safety state grant programs currently
authorized include: highway safety programs, occupant
protection incentive grants, alcohol impaired driving
countermeasures incentive grants, safety belt performance
grants, state traffic safety information systems improvement
grants, high visibility enforcement program, child safety and
child booster seat safety incentive grants, and motorcyclist
safety grants.
These grant programs provide resources to states for
highway safety programs that are data-driven and that meet
states' most pressing highway safety problems. They are a
critical asset in reducing highway traffic fatalities and
injuries.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $501,828,000 in liquidating cash
from the Highway Trust Fund to pay outstanding obligations of
the highway safety grant programs at the levels provided in
this Act and prior appropriations Acts. The Committee also
recommends limiting the obligations from the highway trust fund
in fiscal year 2013 for the highway traffic safety grants
programs to $501,828,000. These levels are $48,500,000 below
fiscal year 2012 and $141,172,000 below the budget request, and
they are contingent upon reauthorization.
The Committee's recommendation maintains current funding
for all grants, except the safety belt performance grant, which
has been phased out by the Administration because it achieved
its purpose of incentivizing states to enact primary seatbelt
laws and is no longer needed.
All other grants are funded at the highest possible level
under the current authorization. Because reauthorization has
not yet occurred, the Committee assumes the highway traffic
safety grant programs now authorized will be reauthorized in
fiscal year 2013 at the same annualized levels.
The Committee does not provide any funding for the
Administration's proposed new distracted driving prevention
grants because they are not authorized. The Committee also
declines the Administration's request to combine the child
safety and booster seat grant with the occupant protection
incentive grant into a new ``combined occupant protection
incentive grant.''
The Committee recommends the following funding allocations:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway safety programs.............................. ($235,000,000)
Occupant protection incentive grants................. (25,000,000)
Safety belt performance grants....................... - - -
Distracted driving prevention grants................. - - -
State traffic safety information systems improvements (34,500,000)
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive (139,000,000)
grants..............................................
Grant administration................................. (25,328,000)
High visibility enforcement program.................. (29,000,000)
Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive (7,000,000)
grants..............................................
Motorcyclist safety.................................. (7,000,000)
------------------
Total............................................ (501,828,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below are descriptions of the grant programs for which the
Committee recommends funding in fiscal year 2013. The
descriptions are based on current law:
Highway Safety Grants.--The state and community highway
safety formula grant program, authorized by 23 U.S.C. 402,
supports state highway safety programs designed to reduce
traffic crashes and resulting deaths, injuries, and property
damage. A state may use these grants only for highway safety
purposes and at least 40 percent of these funds are to be
expended by political subdivisions of the state.
Occupant Protection Incentive Grants.--The occupant
protection incentive grants, authorized by 23 U.S.C. 405,
encourage states to adopt and implement programs to reduce
deaths and injuries from riding unrestrained or improperly
restrained in motor vehicles.
State Traffic Safety Information Systems Improvements.--The
state traffic safety information systems improvements program,
authorized by 23 U.S.C. 408, provides incentive grants to
encourage states to adopt and implement programs to improve the
timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration,
and accessibility of state data needed to identify priorities
in national, state, and local highway and traffic safety
programs.
Alcohol-impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive
Grants.--The alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive
grant program, authorized by 23 U.S.C. 410, encourages states
to adopt and implement programs to reduce traffic safety
problems resulting from individuals driving under the influence
of alcohol.
Grants Administration Expenses.--Section 2001(a)(11) of
SAFETEA-LU authorizes funding salaries and operating expenses
necessary to the administration of the grants programs.
High Visibility Enforcement Program.--Section 2009 of
SAFETEA-LU directs NHTSA to administer at least two high-
visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns each year
to achieve one or both of these objectives: (1) reduce alcohol-
impaired or drug-impaired operation of motor vehicles; and (2)
increase the use of safety belts by occupants of motor
vehicles. These funds may be used to pay for the development,
production, and use of broadcast and print media in carrying
out traffic safety law enforcement campaigns.
Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive
Grants.--Section 2012 of SAFETEA-LU authorizes incentive grants
to states that enforce laws requiring any child riding in a
passenger vehicle who is too large to be secured in a child
safety seat to be secured in a child restraint meeting the
requirements of section 3 of Anton's Law (49 U.S.C. Sec. 30127
note; 116 Stat. 2772).
Motorcyclist Safety.--Section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU authorizes
incentive grants to encourage states to adopt and implement
programs to reduce the number of single and multivehicle
crashes involving motorcyclists. States may use grant funds
only for motorcyclist safety training and motorcyclist
awareness programs.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION

Section 140. The Committee continues a provision that
provides limited funding for travel and related expenses
associated with state management reviews and highway safety
core competency development training.
Section 141. The Committee continues a provision that
exempts from the current fiscal year's obligation limitation
any obligation authority that was made available in previous
public laws for multiple years including this fiscal year.
Section 142. The Committee continues a provision that
prohibits funding for the National Highway Safety Advisory
Committee.

Federal Railroad Administration

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) was established
by the Department of Transportation Act, on October 15, 1966.
The FRA plans, develops, and administers programs and
regulations to promote the safe operation of freight and
passenger rail transportation in the United States. The U.S.
railroad system consists of over 550 railroads with over
187,000 freight employees, 171,000 miles of track, and 1.35
million freight cars. In addition, the FRA continues to oversee
grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
with the goal of assisting Amtrak with improvements to its
passenger service and physical infrastructure.

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $178,596,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 156,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 184,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +5,404,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. +28,000,000

The safety and operations account provides funding for
FRA's safety program activities related to passenger and
freight railroads. Funding also supports salaries and expenses
and other operating costs related to FRA staff and programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $184,000,000 for safety and
operations, which is $5,404,000 above the fiscal year 2012
enacted level and $28,000,000 above the budget request. The
Committee rejects the proposal to establish a rail safety user
fee collected from railroads to offset salary costs associated
with rail safety inspectors. Of the amount provided under this
heading, $12,860,000 is available until expended.
Rolling Stock Pooled Procurement.--August 2011, the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) announced grants totaling
$728,565,044 for pooled procurements of diesel locomotives and
bi-level passenger cars that will be used on state-supported
Amtrak regional corridors in the Midwest, California, and
Pacific Northwest. While the Committee believes in the benefits
of pooled procurements and standardized equipment purchases,
the Committee is troubled by the slow pace of these two
procurements. Especially during a time of severe budget
constraints, the Committee urges FRA to maximize the options to
be considered through the pooled procurement process and to
fully and fairly evaluate the total cost of ownership of the
equipment as well as track and attendant infrastructure. The
Committee is also disappointed by the lack of progress with the
pooled procurement process. While the FRA recently released the
request for proposal for the bi-level coaches, the locomotive
procurement has not yet started. The Committee expects FRA to
work with the states to ensure that the equipment procurement
award for both the coaches and locomotives is made before the
end of the year. Furthermore, the Committee directs FRA to
submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no
later than July 1, 2012, a detailed plan with schedule
milestones for making the awards through the pooled
procurements before December 31, 2012.

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $35,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 35,500,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 35,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The railroad research and development program provides
science and technology support for FRA's policy and regulatory
efforts. The program's objectives are to reduce the frequency
and severity of railroad accidents through scientific
advancement, and to support technological innovations in
conventional and high speed railroads.
The Committee is encouraged by FRA research & development
activities in the areas of communications-based train control
and vital positive train control, and believes that these
technologies show considerable potential for safety
improvements and better management of rail capacity
constraints. However, research and development projects related
to vital positive train control demonstrate that there are
various remaining technological challenges such as braking
algorithms, for example. The Committee believes that it is
important that FRA continues to dedicate resources toward
addressing these challenges, and strongly encourages FRA to
expedite its research and development investments in vital
positive train control in ways that will improve safety
capacity in the nation's rail system. An important element in
this regard will be focusing on the moving of block
technologies.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,500,000
for railroad research and development, which is $500,000 above
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and the same as the budget
request. The Committee's recommendation includes the following
allocation for FRA's Railroad Research and Development account:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroad System Issues.................................... $3,374,000
Human Factors............................................. 3,045,000
Rolling Stock and Components.............................. 2,794,000
Track and Structures...................................... 5,075,000
Track and Train Interaction............................... 3,353,000
Train Control............................................. 7,330,000
Grade Crossings........................................... 1,956,000
Hazardous Materials Transportation........................ 1,444,000
Train Occupant Protection................................. 4,284,000
R&D Facilities and Test Equipment......................... 2,375,000
Railroad Cooperative Research Program..................... 500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 2013.

CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIGH SPEED CORRIDORS AND INTERCITY PASSENGER
RAIL SERVICE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... - - -\1\
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

\1\The Administration requested $1,000,000,000 as mandatory spending for
a new Network Development account for similar activities.

The Capital Assistance for High Speed Corridors and
Intercity Passenger Rail Service program was first funded in
the American Reinvestment Recovery Act.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no funding for capital assistance
for high speed corridors and intercity passenger rail service
in fiscal year 2013. The recommendation is the same as the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level, and $1,000,000,000 below the
budget request.

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

Amtrak operates trains over 20,000 miles of track owned by
freight railroad carriers, and over about 654 miles of its own
track, most of which is on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) from
Washington, D.C., to Boston, Massachusetts. Amtrak operates
both electrified trains, which can achieve speeds of up to 150
mph on the highest quality track on the NEC, and diesel
locomotives, which currently can achieve speeds between 74-110
miles per hour.
Congressional budget justification.--The Committee
appreciates the level of detail in the fiscal year 2013 budget
justifications and directs Amtrak to continue to submit
justifications with a similar level of detail in all future
budget years.

Operating Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $466,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 350,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -116,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. +350,000,000

Amtrak runs a deficit each year and requires a federal
subsidy to cover both operating losses and capital investments.
The Committee commends Amtrak for taking steps to lower the
needed Federal subsidy for operating losses. While not yet
fully self-sufficient, Amtrak has taken steps that reduce the
need for a Federal subsidy by over $100,000,000 in fiscal year
2012. However, Amtrak typically requests and receives more
funding than it actually needs, resulting in an excessive
appropriation each fiscal year. For example in fiscal year
2012, Amtrak requested $616,000,000 for its operating subsidy
and was appropriated $466,000,000. To date, Amtrak projects to
lose $345,000,000, making the excess subsidy around
$121,000,000. The following chart demonstrates this dynamic
over the past three fiscal years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak Funding Levels ($millions) FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Budget Request....... 572 563 \1\616
Appropriation.................... 563 563 466
Actual Loss...................... 420 446 \2\345
Excess Appropriation............. 143 117 121
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the President requested funds for
Amtrak as mandatory; thus, $616 million is Amtrak's Grant request.
\2\This is Amtrak's estimate of end-of-year loss, based on monthly
progress reports.

The Committee notes the majority of Amtrak's services are
profitable. However, federally mandated services such as long-
distance and state-supported routes sustain large losses that
cannot be overcome by Amtrak's profitable services. The table
below reflects the profitability, or lack thereof, of Amtrak's
six major lines of business.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profit/(Loss)
Amtrak's Line of Business -------------------------
FY 2010 FY 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Route Performance--Acela...................... $135.1 $208.1
Route Performance--Northeast Regional......... 6.6 47.1
Route Performance--State Supported Routes..... (181.2) (148.4)
Route Performance--Long Distance Routes....... (520.4) (553.5)
National Train Service NonCore................ (1.6) (37.6)
Ancillary/Freight/Depreciation/Interest....... 141.5 38.1
-------------------------
Total Profit/Loss......................... (420.0) (446.2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Recommendation

The Committee recommends $350,000,000 for operating grants
for Amtrak, which is $116,000,000 below the fiscal year 2012
enacted level and $350,000,000 above the budget request.
The Committee includes bill language allowing the Secretary
to retain up to one-half of one percent for the use of the FRA
in the implementation of the Amtrak Operating Grants as
authorized by section 103 of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act. FRA requires such funds to oversee the
operating grants to Amtrak, to ensure prudent use of federal
funds and to foster transparency.
Food, Beverage and First Class Services.--In fiscal year
2011, food and beverage services resulted in $85 million in
direct operating losses. The majority of these losses are
attributable to long distance routes and labor costs. While
Amtrak has made progress at reducing commissary and support
costs, labor costs have increased mainly due to wage increases.
Currently, the average salary of an on-board service attendant
is between $24.11 and $27.09 per hour. This is more than twice
the average salary of a transportation attendant across various
transportation modes,\1\ and over 20% higher than the average
salary of a flight attendant.\2\ Further, in Amtrak's last
negotiated labor agreement in 2010, on-board service attendants
were guaranteed a 3% wage increase per year until 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Mean Hourly
Wage of Transportation Attendants, Except Flight Attendants is $11.64.
People working in this field provide services to ensure the safety and
comfort of passengers aboard ships, buses, trains, or within the
station or terminal. They perform duties such as greeting passengers,
explaining the use of safety equipment, serving meals or beverages, and
answering questions related to travel. This definition excludes
``Baggage Porters and Bellhops''
\2\According to Amtrak Financial and BLS data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee is concerned with the taxpayer footing the
bill for Amtrak's consistently unprofitable Food, Beverage and
First Class Service. The Committee directs Amtrak to create
performance metrics in its next five year financial plan to
reduce costs in food service, especially in labor costs and
commissary and support costs.
Further, the Committee directs the Amtrak Inspector General
(IG) to submit an analysis of the cost of providing food
service. The IG should conduct a comprehensive cost comparison
of current services versus the alternative of Amtrak
contracting out these services. This cost comparison should
include the total cost of potential buy-outs of current
employees. Further, the IG should submit an analysis of which
positions in food service can be contracted out and which
positions cannot. This analysis and report shall be provided to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by November
1, 2012.
Reduced price fares.--The bill continues a provision that
prohibits funding on routes where Amtrak is offering 50 percent
or more off the normal, peak fare.

CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $952,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... $1,452,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... $500,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. $1,452,000,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,452,000,000 for capital grants,
of which no less than $271,000,000 is provided for Amtrak's
debt service. The Committee's recommendation is $500,000,000
above the level enacted in fiscal year 2012 and $1,452,000,000
above the budget request.
Bridges and Tunnels Grants.--The bill provides $500,000,000
of capital funds to fund high priority, state-of-good-repair,
intercity infrastructure projects owned by Amtrak or States.
Funding should go to existing infrastructure needs rather than
unrealistic new high-speed rail lines to nowhere. This funding
shall be used only to reduce the state-of-good-repair
infrastructure backlog, and it must provide joint
transportation benefits of regional significance. Further, this
funding may not supplant any local, state or private funding
sources for projects that are otherwise programmed under Amtrak
or States' funded capital programs. The bill allows up to
$80,000,000 of these funds to be used for Amtrak operating
assistance only if the Secretary of Transportation determines
that Amtrak requires such assistance to remain operational. The
Committee strongly believes that these infrastructive funds
should be used for capital improvement and only used for
operating assistance in the event of an unanticipated and
emergency shortfall. Finally, the Federal share of any grant
shall not exceed 80%.
Americans with Disabilities Act.--The Committee recommends
that Amtrak use no less than $50,000,000 of its capital funds
to assist it in meeting its statutory obligations under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA requires that
Amtrak make all intercity passenger rail stations readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,
including individuals who use wheelchairs, as soon as
practicable.
Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory
Commission.--The Committee recommends up to $3,000,000, instead
of up to one half of one percent of the funds provided under
this heading, as enacted in fiscal year 2012 and as proposed in
the budget request. The Committee directs the Northeast
Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission to
submit its FY 2014 budget request to the Appropriations
Committees in similar format and substance as those submitted
by other executive agencies of the federal government.

NEXT GENERATION HIGH SPEED RAIL

(RESCISSION)

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

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

(RESCISSION)

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

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Section 150. The Committee retains a provision that ceases
the availability of Amtrak funds if a railroad contracts for
services outside the United States for any service performed by
a full-time or part-time Amtrak employee as of July 1, 2006.
Section 151. The Committee retains a provision, which
allows FRA to receive and use cash or spare parts to repair and
replace damaged automated track inspection cars and equipment
in connection with the automated track inspection program.
Section 152. The Committee includes a provision which
authorizes the Secretary to allow issuers of any preferred
stock to redeem or repurchase such stock sold to the
Department.
Section 153. The Committee continues a provision that
limits overtime to $35,000 per employee, allows Amtrak's
president to waive this restriction for specific employees for
safety or operational efficiency reasons, and requires
notification to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within 30 days of granting such waivers.
Section 154. The Committee includes a provision which
transfers unobligated balances in contract authority that were
originally authorized for Magnetic Levitation to activities
authorized under the Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Hazard
Elimination Program.

Federal Transit Administration

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as
a component of the Department of Transportation on July 1,
1968, when most of the functions and programs under the Federal
Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were
transferred from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Known as the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration until enactment of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit
Administration administers federal financial assistance
programs for planning, developing, and improving comprehensive
mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban areas.
The most recent authorization for the programs under the
Federal Transit Administration is contained in the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59). During the
authorization period provided under, the annual Appropriations
Acts included annual limitations on obligations for the formula
and bus grants programs, and direct appropriations of budget
authority from the General Fund of the Treasury for the FTA's
administrative expenses, research programs, and capital
investment grants. The transit programs authorized under
SAFETEA-LU expired on September 30, 2011, with short term
extensions continuing the activities.
In the past, the Committee has assumed a continuation of
the program authorized by SAFETEA-LU, or something very
similar. The Committee is confident that new surface
authorization is forthcoming, and had tried to recommend
funding levels and authorities that are flexible enough to meet
the new bill. While the Committee is prepared for some changes,
it appears that the new authorization will adhere more closely
to the SAFETEA-LU account structure rather than the accounts
proposed by the Administration and therefore, the Committee has
chosen to propose appropriations consistent with prior years.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $98,713,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 166,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 100,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +1,287,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -66,000,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $100,000,000 for FTA's
administrative expenses, an increase of $1,287,000 over the
fiscal year 2012 level, and a decrease of $66,000,000 below the
budget request. The Committee recommendation provides for the
base program and does not include the funds requested to retain
employees brought on pursuant to the stimulus bill's funding,
nor does it include funds for new unauthorized safety offices.
Unauthorized Safety Office.--Once again, FTA is proposing
to establish an office to regulate local rail transit safety.
While the Committee wholly endorses the efforts and regulations
of state offices overseeing the safety of transit and rail
systems within their states, the Committee notes that there are
major challenges to FTA undertaking this initiative, aside from
the lack of authorization, that have led the Committee to
determine that Federal funds are not appropriate. Based on a
Committee hearing with the DOT Office of Inspector General and
the Government Accountability Office on March 29, 2012, and two
reports issued on the topic: DOT OIG's ``Challenges to
Improving Oversight of Rail Transit Safety and Implementing an
Enhanced Federal Role'' (MH-2012-048) and GAO's ``FTA's
Programs are Helping Address Transit Agencies' Safety
Challenges, but Improved Performance Goals and Measures Could
Better Focus Efforts'', the Committee believes there is plenty
FTA can accomplish within existing funds and existing
authorities to be a leader in advising states and transit
agencies on safety concerns. Further, both reports mention that
FTA has issues and deficiencies in its own rail accident
database, and that major obstacles exist to implementing a
nation-wide, one-size fits all system. According to the IG and
GAO, FTA still has not achieved the recommendations included in
both reports. Until FTA can get its house in order to manage
the program currently in place, additional funds, FTE and
responsibilities would simply distract the agency and the
Committee will not recommend funds for these new activities.
Operating Plans.--The Committee reiterates its direction
from previous years which requires the FTA's operating plan to
include a specific allocation of administrative expenses
resources. The operating plan should include a delineation of
full time equivalent employees, for the following offices:
Office of the Administrator; Office of Administration; Office
of Chief Counsel; Office of Communications and Congressional
Affairs; Office of Program Management; Office of Budget and
Policy; Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation;
Office of Civil Rights; Office of Planning and Environment; and
Regional Offices. Further, the operating plan must include any
new programs or changes to the budget request, including new
grant programs. In addition, the Committee directs the FTA to
notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations at
least thirty days in advance of any change that results in an
increase or decrease of more than five percent from the initial
operating plan submitted to the Committees for fiscal year
2013.
Budget Justifications and Annual New Starts Report.--The
Committee also continues the direction to FTA to submit future
budget justifications in a format consistent with the
instruction provided in House Report 109-153. FTA is free to
submit a budget in alternate formats, but must also include the
information required by the Committee. The Committee has again
included bill language requiring FTA to submit the annual new
starts report with the initial submission of the budget request
due in February, 2013.
Transit Security.--The Committee continues bill language
prohibiting FTA from creating a permanent office of transit
security. The Committee's position remains that the Department
of Homeland Security is the lead agency on transportation
security and has overall responsibility among all modes of
transportation, including rail and transit lines.
Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs).--TEA-21 required
that the 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 sixty
days before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its
notification to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, the Committee directs the FTA to include the
following: (1) a copy of the proposed full funding grant
agreement; (2) the total and annual federal appropriations
required for that project; (3) yearly and total federal
appropriations that can be reasonably planned or anticipated
for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2012; (4) a
detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and
anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization; (5) an
evaluation of whether the alternatives analysis made by the
applicant fully assessed all 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 the finance plan; (7) the source
and security of all public- and private-sector financial
instruments; (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 continues the direction to FTA to inform the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing thirty
days before approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any
full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to
changes shall include any budget revisions or program changes
that materially alter the project as originally stipulated in
the full funding grant agreement, including any proposed change
in rail car procurements. In addition, the Committee directs
FTA to continue reporting monthly to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on the status of each project with
a full funding grant agreement or that is within two years of a
full funding grant agreement. The Committee finds the monthly
updates informative and a useful oversight tool.

FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation on
contract
authorization

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $8,360,565,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 8,178,557,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 8,360,565,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................. +182,008,000

Formula grants to states and local agencies funded under
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) fall into the
following categories: Alaska Railroad, clean fuels grant
program, over-the-road bus accessibility program, urbanized
area formula grants, bus and bus facility grants, fixed
guideway modernization, planning programs (both metropolitan
and statewide), formula grants for special needs for elderly
individuals and individuals with disabilities, formula grants
for other than urbanized areas, job access and reverse commute
formula program, new freedom program, growing states and high
density states formula, National Transit Database, alternatives
analysis, and alternative transportation in parks and public
lands. SAFETEA-LU provided contract authority for the formula
and bus program from the mass transit account of the highway
trust fund. The Appropriations Act sets an annual obligation
limitation for such authority. This account is the only FTA
account funded from the highway trust fund.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an obligation limitation of
$8,360,565,000,000 for the formula programs and activities
which is $182,008,000 above the budget request and the same as
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Funds are contingent upon
enactment of legislation reauthorizing the transit program, and
available for an array of programs under chapter 53 of title 49
United States Code. It is the intent of the Committee that the
specific authorities and provisions will be determined by a
subsequent reauthorization of the formula transit program, or
the appropriations conference process. The Committee's
recommendation also includes $9,400,000,000 in liquidating
funds.

RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $44,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 120,957,000
Recommended in the bill 44,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -76,957,000

Grants for transit research are authorized by the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59) (SAFETEA-LU). Starting in
fiscal year 2006, activities formerly under the `Transit
Planning and Research' account are now under the `Formula and
Bus Grants' account. The National Research program, the Transit
Cooperative Research Program, and the National Institute are
funded under this new heading. Funding for the National
Research programs will be used to cover costs for FTA's
essential safety and security activities and transit safety
data collection. Under the national component of the program,
FTA is a catalyst in the research, development and deployment
of transportation methods and technologies which address issues
such as accessibility for the disabled, air quality, traffic
congestion, and transit services and operational improvements.
The University Research Centers program will provide continued
support for research education and technology transfer
activities aimed at addressing regional and national
transportation problems.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $44,000,000 for FTA's research
activities, the same as last year's level. FTA proposed a new
account, ``Research and Technology Deployment'' as a mandatory
program funded at a level $76,957,000 over the level
recommended in this bill. The Committee did not receive an
authorization or funding proposal and has chosen to continue
with the already established account.
Consistent with the direction that was provided in previous
years, the Committee requires FTA to report by May 15, 2013, on
all FTA-sponsored research projects from fiscal year 2012 and
2013. For each project, the report should include information
on the National relevance of the research, relevance to the
transit industry and community, expected final product and
delivery date, sources of non-FTA funding committed to the
project or research institute, and FTA funding history.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $1,955,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 2,235,486,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,816,993,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -138,007,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -418,493,000

Grants for capital investment to rail or other fixed
guideway transit systems are awarded to public bodies and
agencies (transit authorities and other state and local public
bodies and agencies thereof) including states, municipalities,
other political subdivisions of states; public agencies and
instrumentalities of one or more states; and certain public
corporations, boards and commissions under state law. The Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59) (SAFETEA-LU) made two
significant changes to the major capital investment grant
program. First, SAFETEA-LU funded the program entirely from the
General Fund of the Treasury. Second, grants for bus and bus
facilities and fixed guideway modernization projects, plus
alternative analysis funds were made eligible under the
`Formula and Bus Grants' account, which is funded by the mass
transit account of the highway trust fund. Grants to the Denali
Commission and the Hawaii and Alaska ferries were dictated by
SAFETEA-LU. Other projects and investments were specifically
authorized by SAFETEA-LU and are subject to regulation and
oversight by FTA. However, like the other surface
transportation programs, authority for the capital investment
grants program expired at the end of September 2011 and is
dependent on authorization extensions until the enactment of a
multi-year reauthorization package.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,816,993,000 for capital
investment grants which is $138,007,000 below the fiscal year
2012 enacted level and $418,493,000 below the budget request.
Within the amount provided, the Committee includes a total of
$27,394,000, or approximately one and a half percent, for
oversight activities of the investments in this account. The
Committee's recommendation includes funding for the following
capital investment grants:

Fiscal Year 2013 recommendation
Small Starts:
CA Fresno, Fresno Area Express...................... $10,000,000
CA San Francisco, Van Ness Ave BRT.................. 10,000,000
FL Jacksonville, JTA BRT (North).................... 19,074,600
MI Grand Rapids, Silver Line BRT.................... 14,744,000
TX El Paso, Mesa Corridor BRT....................... 15,237,058
FL Jacksonville JTA Southeast....................... 19,101,000
OR West Eugene Emerald Express...................... 19,410,136
AZ Mesa, Central Mesa............................... 20,000,000
Signed Full Funding Grant Agreements:
NY Long Island Rail Road East Side Access........... 215,000,000
NY Second Avenue Subway............................. 123,384,621
TX Dallas Northwest/Southeast....................... 79,030,569
VA Northern VA Dulles............................... 96,000,000
WA Seattle University Link LRT...................... 110,000,000
MN Central Corridor LRT............................. 98,443,694
FL Orlando Central Florida.......................... 30,080,650
CO Denver Eagle..................................... 150,000,000
TX Houston North Corridor........................... 100,000,000
TX Houston Southeast Corridor....................... 100,000,000
UT Salt Lake City Draper............................ 5,716,600
CT Hartford New Britain Busway...................... 58,715,922
New Starts--Anticipated in 2013:
CA San Francisco Third Street....................... 100,000,000
HI Honolulu......................................... 100,000,000
CA South Sacramento Corridor Phase 2................ 45,660,000
CA San Jose Silicon Valley.......................... 150,000,000
OR Portland-Milwaukie............................... 100,000,000

While the Committee's recommendation is slightly lower than
the budget request, the Committee made every effort to address
the priorities in this account. First, the Committee funded
every project with a signed full funding grant agreement (FFGA)
as a contract has already been made between the Department and
the various states and localities. Second, the Committee funded
projects that have a high likelihood of reaching a FFGA during
2012, and all of the small starts proposed for funding in
fiscal year 2013. The Committee was able to fund every FFGA at
the negotiated payout amount, and was able to provide a healthy
payout for the first year of the anticipated new FFGAs.
The Committee cannot stress the point enough: capital
investment grants are discretionary dollars. FTA needs to
manage the projects and the pipeline so as to not overwhelm the
discretionary budget of the agency. Relatively few communities
have a fixed guideway system, and fixed guideway systems are
not suitable for every community so it is befuddling as to why
the budget would propose making the activities under this
account mandatory and the funds drawn from a trust fund funded
from the gas tax paid for by all, to help the transportation
infrastructure for all.
The Committee's recommendation funds the small starts and
bus rapid transit projects out of the capital investment grants
account. The sleight of hand provision which directed these
projects to be funded out of the formula account is simply not
an option in fiscal year 2013. Neither the House or Senate
surface reauthorization proposals contain discretionary funds
to shoulder the burden of financing said projects. Upon inquiry
by the Committee, FTA has stated that should the fiscal year
2013 appropriation again move the small starts/bus rapid
transit projects to an account that, upon enactment of a new
surface authorization bill, cannot accommodate those projects,
FTA has no way to come through with the funding.
The Committee and FTA will need to give a closer look at
the projects moving through the grant pipeline and be more
selective on which projects receive Federal dollars. The
Committee supports mass transit and supports local efforts to
maximize transit expansion, but project construction will need
to be financed to a greater degree at the local level. Not
every project, even those that complete all the requirements
under Title 49, will be able to receive Federal funds. Fixed
guideway systems are not an entitlement. The Committee supports
FTA's ability to provide technical assistance and assistance
with project oversight to help localities make sound
investments. However, the Committee directs FTA to only further
projects to a full funding grant agreement if the project
requires a less than 60 percent new starts share and rates
medium high or high in the categories related to finance and
reducing congestion.

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $150,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 135,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 150,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. +15,000,000

Section 601 of Division B of the Passenger Rail Investment
and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432) authorized
$1.5 billion over a ten-year period for preventive maintenance
and capital grants for the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transportation Authority (WMATA). The law requires that the
federal funds be matched dollar for dollar by Virginia,
Maryland and the District of Columbia in equal proportions. The
compact required under the law has been established and
Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia have all
committed to providing $50 million each in local matching
funds.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for
preventive maintenance and capital grants for WMATA, which is
$15,000,000 more than the budget request and equal to the
authorization and fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The Committee
directs WMATA to continue addressing the safety issues within
the agency, specifically, those identified by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Further, the Committee
directs WMATA to continue with its capital improvement plans
and not defer capital and safety investments in order to offset
operating costs.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Section 160. The Committee continues the provision that
exempts previously made transit obligations from limitations on
obligations.
Section 161. The Committee continues the provision that
allows funds appropriated for capital investment grants and bus
and bus facilities not obligated by September 30, 2015, plus
other recoveries to be available for other projects under 49
U.S.C. 5309.
Section 162. The Committee continues the provision that
allows for the transfer of prior year appropriations from older
accounts to be merged into new accounts with similar, current
activities.
Section 163. The Committee continues the provision that
allows prior year funds available for capital investment grants
to be used in this fiscal year for such projects.
Section 164. The Committee continues the provision that
requires unobligated funds or recoveries under section 5309 of
title 49 that are available for reallocation shall be directed
to projects eligible to use the funds for the purposes for
which they were originally intended.
Section 165. The Committee continues the provision that
provides flexibility to fund program management oversight
activities as authorized by section 5316 of title 49, United
States Code.
Section 166. The Committee includes a new provision that
prohibits funds from being used to carry out 49 U.S.C.
5309(m)(6)(B) and (C).
Section 167. The Committee continues the provision that
prohibits a full funding grant agreement for a project with a
new starts share greater than 60%.
Section 168. The Committee has included a new provision
regarding charter bus service. In prior year appropriations
Acts, transit operators in Seattle, Washington have been exempt
from the regulations regarding charter bus service. The
standing regulation in part 604 to title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations was the result of a provision in SAFETEA-LU (P.L.
109-59) which directed the Secretary to initiate a negotiated
rulemaking process to bring both transit and charter bus
operators to the table and come to an agreement about
nonscheduled bus service. The negotiated rulemaking process was
long, but fair, and in the end the parties reached a consensus
on most of the issues and FTA issued the final rule in 2007.
Other communities, companies, and agencies across the country
have complied in good faith with the negotiated rule, except
one. Rather than once again legislatively prohibiting the
Secretary from enforcing this regulation, the Committee directs
the Secretary and the Administrator of the Federal Transit
Administration to sit down with the stakeholders and come to a
resolution on this issue.
Section 169. The Committee continues the provision that
permits the Secretary to consider significant private
contributions when calculating the non-Federal share of new
starts projects.
Section 169A. The Committee includes a new provision that
rescinds a total of $102,889,367 in unobligated prior year
funds.
Section 169B. The Committee includes a new provision
regarding a certain fixed guideway project in Houston, Texas.
Section 169C. The Committee continues a provision that
allows fuel and utilities for vehicles to be treated as a
capital maintenance expense under section 5307 in fiscal year
2013, up to $100,000,000.

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $32,259,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 33,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 33,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +741,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The Great Lakes Saint Lawrence Seaway System, located
between Montreal and Lake Erie, is a binational, 15-lock system
jointly operated by the U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation (SLSDC) and its Canadian counterpart, the Canadian
St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. The SLSDC was
established by the St. Lawrence Seaway Act of 1954 and is a
wholly owned government corporation and an operating
administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
The SLSDC is charged with operating and maintaining the U.S.
portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway. This responsibility
includes the two U.S. locks in Massena, New York, vessel
traffic control in portions of the St. Lawrence River and Lake
Ontario, and trade development functions to enhance the
utilization of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 authorized the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as a source of appropriations for
SLSDC operations and maintenance. Additionally, the SLSDC
generates non-federal revenues which can then be used for
operations and maintenance.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$33,000,000 to fund the operations, maintenance, and capital
asset renewal needs of the SLSDC. This funding level is the
same as the fiscal year 2012 request and $741,000 more than the
prior year appropriation. The Committee continues the
requirement that the SLSDC provides semiannual reports
consistent with the requirements stated in the Explanatory
Statement of the Department of Transportation Appropriations
Act of 2009.

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is responsible for
programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support
of the Nation's security and economic needs, as authorized by
the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. MARAD's mission is to promote
the development and maintenance of an adequate, well-balanced
United States merchant marine, sufficient to carry the Nation's
domestic waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of its
waterborne foreign commerce, and capable of serving as a naval
and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency.
MARAD, working with the Department of Defense (DoD), helps
provide a seamless, time-phased transition from peacetime to
wartime operations, while balancing the defense and commercial
elements of the maritime transportation system. MARAD also
manages the maritime security program, the voluntary intermodal
sealift agreement program and the ready reserve force, which
assures DoD access to commercial and strategic sealift and
associated intermodal capability. Further, MARAD's education
and training programs through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy
and six state maritime academies help create skilled U.S.
merchant marine officers.

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $174,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 184,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 184,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +10,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The purpose of the Maritime Security Program (MSP) is to
maintain and preserve a U.S. flag merchant fleet to serve the
national security needs of the United States. The MSP provides
direct payments to U.S. flagship operators engaged in U.S.-
foreign trade. Participating operators are required to keep the
vessels in active commercial service and are required to
provide intermodal sealift support to the Department of Defense
in times of war or national emergency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $184,000,000
for this account, an increase of $10,000,000 over the level
enacted in fiscal year 2012. This recommendation provides
funding directly to MARAD and assumes that MARAD will continue
to administer the program with support and consultation of the
Department of Defense. Funds are available until expended.

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $156,258,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 146,298,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 145,753,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -10,505,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -545,000

The operations and training account provides funding for
headquarters and field offices to administer and direct MARAD
operations and programs. The account also provides funding for
the operation of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and financial
assistance to the six state maritime academies.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $145,753,000 for MARAD operations
and training expenses, $10,505,000 less than the fiscal year
2012 funding level and $545,000 below the fiscal year 2013
budget request.
MARAD Operations.--Of the funds provided, $47,000,000 is
for headquarters and regional office operations, and maritime
program expenses. This proposal reflects a reduction of
$1,199,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and
$2,000,000 below the request. The Committee notes that MARAD
reports 33 vacancies, as of January 2012, in the headquarters
and regional offices. The fiscal year 2012 statement of the
managers directed MARAD to report on the number of vacancies
concurrent with the fiscal year 2013 budget submission. The
report was ultimately transmitted with a cover letter dated May
10, 2012. The Committee directs MARAD to apply the reduction
from the budget request to salaries and expenses. Further, the
Committee continues the reporting requirement that MARAD submit
information on the number of vacancies at MARAD headquarters
and regional offices, and the duties associated with each
vacancy concurrent with the fiscal year 2014 budget submission.
United States Merchant Marine Academy.--The U.S. Merchant
Marine Academy (the Academy or USMMA) provides educational
programs for men and women to become shipboard officers and
leaders in the maritime industry. The Committee continues to
include language requiring all funding for the Academy go
directly to the Secretary, and that 50 percent of the funding
will not be available until MARAD submits a plan detailing how
the funding will be spent. The Committee's funding
recommendation includes a total of $77,253,000 in fiscal year
2013 for the USMMA, of which up to $63,253,000 is for Academy
operations and not less than $14,000,000 is for capital
improvements. While the Committee is providing the budget
request of $34,146,000 for the salaries and benefits to USMMA
employees, the Committee can't help but note the USMMA is
reporting, as of January 2012, a 16 percent vacancy rate with
52 unfilled positions. Should the USMMA find they still have a
large number of vacancies in June 2013, the Committee urges
MARAD and the USMMA explore opportunities to shift the unused
salaries and expenses funds to capital improvements through the
regular reprogramming procedures.
Gender and ethnic diversity at the U.S. Merchant Marine
Academy [USMMA].--The Committee is concerned about the lack of
diversity at the USMMA. The levels of female and ethnic
minority students at the USMMA are very low, below those at
other service academies and state marine academies. The
Committee understands that the USMMA is in the process of
hiring a permanent staff person to address diversity issues but
is still concerned about the lack of a plan beyond that to
address diversity. The Committee directs the USMMA to develop a
coordinated comprehensive strategy to recruit and retain female
and ethnic minority students. The USMMA is directed to provide
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with a report
summarizing its efforts to address this issue by March 21,
2013.
State Maritime Academies.--The Committee recommends
$17,500,000 for the state maritime academies. Of the funds
provided, $3,600,000 is for direct payments, $2,400,000 is for
student payments, and $11,500,000 is for schoolship maintenance
and repair.

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $5,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 10,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +1,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -6,000,000

MARAD serves as the federal government's disposal agent for
government-owned merchant vessels weighing 1,500 gross tons or
more. The ship disposal program provides resources to dispose
of obsolete merchant-type vessels in the National Defense
Reserve Fleet (NDRF). The Maritime Administration was required
by Public Law 106-398 to dispose of its obsolete inventory by
the end of 2006. These vessels pose a significant environmental
threat due to the presence of hazardous substances such as
asbestos and solid and liquid polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
As reported in the fiscal year 2013 budget documents, MARAD has
custody of approximately 49 obsolete vessels that are not yet
under contract for disposal, a reduction of 15 ships from the
64 reported in the 2012 budget. The obsolete ships are located
at the James River Reserve Fleet site in Virginia (14 ships--a
reduction of 2 from the prior year), the Suisun Bay Reserve
Fleet (SBRF) site in California (27 ships--a reduction of 12
from the prior year), and the Beaumont Reserve Fleet site in
Texas (8 ships--one less than the prior year). MARAD
anticipates removing another 9 ships from the SBRF during
fiscal year 2012.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for this account,
$6,000,000 below the budget request and $1,500,000 below the
fiscal year 2012 funding level. Funds are available until
expended.
Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends
$3,000,000 for maintenance and safeguarding of the Nuclear Ship
Savannah. The remaining funds are for ship disposal activities.
The Committee notes MARAD has successfully put a number of
ships out for sale rather than contracting for disposal, thus
saving the taxpayer millions. The fiscal year 2013 proposed
funding level reflects the Committee's confidence that MARAD
can continue moving a significant number of ships out of the
NDRF by sales rather than by contract.

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $3,740,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 3,750,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,750,000
Bill compared with:...................................
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +10,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program, as provided for by
Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, provides for
guaranteed loans for purchasers of ships from the U.S.
shipbuilding industry and for modernization of U.S. shipyards.
Funds for administrative expenses for the Title XI program are
appropriated to this account, and then paid to operations and
training to be obligated and expended.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $3,750,000
for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program, $10,000
more than the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. MARAD
currently manages a loan portfolio of approximately
$2,300,000,000. Since 2009, the agency has reported
consistently that the number of loans not in default has fallen
short of the stated goal of 92%. Until the portfolio performs
up to the agency's goal of 92% of loans not in default, the
Committee cannot endorse an expansion of this loan program

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 170. The Committee continues a provision that
allows the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and
services and make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy
involving government property under the control of MARAD and
rental payments shall be paid into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
Section 171. The Committee continues a provision regarding
MARAD ship disposal.

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) administers nationwide safety programs designed to
protect the public and the environment from risks inherent in
the commercial transportation of hazardous materials by
pipeline, air, rail, vessel, and highway. Many of these
materials are essential to the national economy. The agency's
highest priority is safety, and it uses safety management
principles and security assessments to promote the safe
transport of hazardous materials and the security of the
nation's pipelines.

OPERATIONAL EXPENSES

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $21,360,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 21,047,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 23,030,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +1,670,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. +1,983,000

This appropriation finances the operational support costs
for PHMSA, including agency-wide functions of administration,
management, policy development, legal counsel, budget,
financial management, civil rights, human resources,
acquisition services, information technology, and governmental
and public affairs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $23,030,000 for PHMSA operational
expenses, of which $639,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline
Safety Fund. This is $1,670,000 above fiscal year 2012, and
$1,983,000 above the budget request. The Committee includes
bill language directing PHMSA to transfer $1,500,000 to the
pipeline safety program to fund the pipeline information grants
to communities.
The Committee recommends increased funding to cover base
adjustments in the pipeline safety program and to continue
support for PHMSA's seven-year information technology (IT)
modernization effort, which began in fiscal year 2010. The
Committee includes $3,815,000 of total operational expenses to
further the IT modernization, as proposed in the budget
request. The Committee directs PHMSA to include full lifecycle
costs of this IT modernization initiative in its future budget
justifications.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $42,338,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 50,673,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 42,546,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +208,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -8,127,000

The hazardous materials safety program advances the safe
and secure transport of hazardous materials (hazmat) in
commerce by air, truck, railroad and vessel. PHMSA evaluates
hazmat safety risks, develops and enforces regulations for
transporting hazmat, educates shippers and carriers,
investigates hazmat incidents and failures, conducts research,
and provides grants to improve emergency response to
transportation incidents involving hazmat.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $42,546,000 to continue the
agency's hazardous materials safety program, which is $208,000
above fiscal year 2012 and $8,127,000 below the budget request.
The Committee recommends $1,725,000 of the total to remain
available for three years for long-term research and
development contracts.
President's Fee Proposal.--The Committee does not include
the President's request for a new fee on the processing and
enforcing of special permits and approvals, which would have
raised $12,000,000 in fiscal year 2013. An expensive new fee
should not be enacted through an appropriations Act, especially
when the new fee would be imposed on top of an existing fee
structure, but rather through authorizing legislation
originating in the committees of jurisdiction.
Special Permits and Approvals.--The Administration's
request to collect new fees for the processing and enforcing of
special permits and approvals (SP&A) is intended to relieve the
increased costs associated with a dramatic increase in program
workload over the past few years. The workload increased
because PHMSA made necessary program improvements in response
to reviews and audits by DOT's Office of the Inspector General
and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
The Committee recognizes the value of these improvements,
the increased demand on the SP&A program, and the value of the
SP&A program in ensuring safety while accommodating industry
innovations in safely transporting hazardous materials.
However, the Committee notes PHMSA can and should deal with the
increased workload in ways that do not require a permanent
expansion of program size and resources. The SP&A process
should be streamlined using ongoing IT system modernizations,
and it should be reevaluated to ensure it is operating
efficiently and as only exceptions to the HMR, which is the
primary method of regulating the transport of hazardous
materials.
The Committee directs PHMSA to evaluate how it can better
utilize the Hazardous Materials Regulations and to formulate
recommendations on how and when HMR improvements can occur, the
cost-savings of such improvements, and the anticipated
lessening of the SP&A workload as a result of such
improvements. PHMSA will report such findings to the Committees
on Appropriations within 180 days of enactment.

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

(PIPELINE SAFETY DESIGN REVIEW FUND)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Oil spill
(Pipeline liability trust (Design review Total
safety fund) fund) fund)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012............. $90,679,000 $18,573,000 - - - $109,252,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013............ 150,500,000 21,510,000 $4,000,000 176,010,000
Recommended in the bill..................... 90,679,000 18,573,000 2,000,000 111,252,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012......... 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013........ -59,821,000 -2,937,000 -2,000,000 -64,758,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PHMSA oversees the safety, security, and environmental
protection of pipelines through analysis of data, damage
prevention, education and training, development and enforcement
of regulations and policies, research and development, grants
for states pipeline safety programs, and emergency planning and
response to accidents. The pipeline safety program is
responsible for a national regulatory program to protect the
public against the risks to life and property in the
transportation of natural gas, petroleum and other hazardous
materials by pipeline. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 expanded
the role of the pipeline safety program in environmental
protection and created new emphasis on spill prevention and
containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $111,252,000 to continue pipeline
safety operations, research and development, and state grants-
in-aid, which is $2,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and
$60,758,000 below the budget request. Of the total, $18,573,000
is from the oil spill liability trust fund, $90,679,000 is from
the pipeline safety fund, and $2,000,000 is from the newly
authorized pipeline safety design review fund. These amounts
reflect the maximum authorized funding levels.
The Committee recommends $1,058,000 of the funds provided
to be used for the one-call State grant program, which is the
same as fiscal year 2012. The Committee recommends $48,191,000
of the funds provided to remain available until September 30,
2015, for multi-year grants and research and development
contracts, which is the same amount as fiscal year 2012.
New Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund.--The Committee
allows $2,000,000 of Pipeline Safety budgetary resources to be
derived from the newly authorized Pipeline Safety Design Review
Fund, which is codified at 49 U.S.C. 60117(n). The fund works
as follows: if a new major pipeline project exceeds the
authorized $2.5 million threshold and begins the planning or
construction phases in fiscal year 2013, then PHMSA is
authorized to recoup costs associated with overseeing and
inspecting it by imposing a design review fee upon the project
sponsor(s). If no such projects are initiated in fiscal year
2013, then these fees will not be collected and these funds
will not be expended. The design review fee more accurately
aligns the costs of overseeing major projects with those who
initiate them.
Pipeline Safety Inspectors.--The Administration requests a
staggering and unreasonable 120 increase in its full-time
equivalent (FTE) for pipeline inspection and enforcement
personnel. The new pipeline authorization, however, which
President Obama signed into law on January 3, 2012, and which
passed the House and Senate with unanimous consensus in 2011,
provided only 10 new FTE if PHMSA first demonstrates it can
fill the significant, long-standing vacancies in its pipeline
inspection and enforcement personnel by the end of fiscal year
2013.
As of May 14, 2012, PHMSA still had vacancies in 10 of its
135 total FTE for pipeline inspection and enforcement.
Therefore, the Committee provides no additional resources at
this time. The Committee will reconsider a modest request for
additional Pipeline Safety personnel in the Administration's
fiscal year 2014 budget, but only if PHMSA satisfies the pre-
conditions enacted into law--by filling existing vacancies
before asking for more and by determining that requested
increases are necessary.
The Committee is aware of several challenges PHMSA faces in
hiring pipeline safety inspectors. One such challenge is the
delay caused by the federal hiring process, which is compounded
by other market dynamics. The Committee encourages the Office
of Personnel Management to give strong consideration to PHMSA's
request for direct-hire authority for its pipeline safety
inspection and enforcement personnel. Such authority may enable
PHMSA to increase its personnel to authorized levels and
thereby demonstrate the need for additional resources.
Pipeline Emergencies Training Program.--The Committee
reiterates its concern that the U.S. pipeline infrastructure is
aging and poses significant safety and environmental risks. The
individuals nationwide who are tasked with responding to
pipeline disasters must be well-trained, and PHMSA must take
seriously its role in providing such training through the
Pipeline Emergencies Training Program.
The Committee is advised there may be deficiencies in
pipeline emergency training in various areas throughout the
country. Therefore, the Committee directs PHMSA to report in-
person to the Committees on Appropriations, within 180 days of
enactment, on whether it has a robust and active training
curriculum, how training is delivered, and what resources are
used to prepare emergency responders.
Self-contained Breathing Apparatus.--The Committee is
advised that the approval processes for Self Contained
Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) respirator cylinders by both PHMSA
and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) may be duplicative and potentially restrictive of
competitive options. The Committee requests PHMSA to conduct a
study, within a year of enactment, on whether these approval
processes can be made more efficient.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

(Emergency (Emergency
preparedness preparedness
fund) grant program)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....... $188,000 ($28,318,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...... 188,000 (28,318,000)
Recommended in the bill............... 188,000 (28,318,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012... - - - - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.. - - - - - -

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act
of 1990 (Public Law 101-615) 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 update
periodically a mandatory training curriculum for emergency
responders.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $28,318,000 for the emergency
preparedness grants program, which is the same as fiscal year
2012 and the budget request.
HMEP Grants.--The Committee supports PHMSA's efforts to
strengthen oversight of the Hazardous Materials Emergency
Preparedness Grants Program, in response to recent audit
findings by the DOT Office of Inspector General.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $15,981,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 13,670,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 13,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -2,487,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -170,000

The Research and Innovative Technology Administration
(RITA) was established as an administration within the
Department of Transportation (DOT) effective November 30, 2004,
pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs
Improvement Act, Public Law 108-426. The mission of RITA is to
provide strategic clarity to DOT's multi-modal and intermodal
research efforts, while coordinating the multifaceted research
agenda of the Department. RITA coordinates, facilitates, and
reviews the following research and development programs and
activities: advancement and research and development of
innovative technologies, including intelligent transportation
systems; education and training in transportation and
transportation-related fields, including the University
Transportation Centers and the Transportation Safety Institute;
and activities of the Volpe National Transportation Center.
Further, RITA includes the Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
which is funded from the Federal Highway Administration's
federal-aid highway account.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $13,500,000 for
fiscal year 2013, which is $2,487,000 below the fiscal year
2012 appropriation provided for RITA and $170,000 below the
fiscal year 2013 budget request.
While the Committee endorses the Administration's proposal
to bring RITA's functions under the Office of the Secretary,
the authorizing committees of jurisdiction have not had a
chance to examine the issue, or consider legislation
authorizing the change. The Committee encourages the Secretary
to find additional salaries and expenses savings in
anticipation of the proposed realignment and directs the
$170,000 reduction to come from this activity.

Office of Inspector General

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Inspector General's office was established in 1978 to
provide an objective and independent organization that would be
more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste,
and abuse in departmental programs and operations; and (2)
providing a means of keeping the Secretary of Transportation
and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems and
deficiencies in the administration of such programs and
operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the
Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to the Secretary of
Transportation and to the Congress.

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $79,624,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 84,499,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 84,499,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012..................... 4,875,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................... - - -

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $84,499,000 for
fiscal year 2013, which is $4,875,000 above the fiscal year
2012 enacted level and equal to the budget request. The
Committee continues to highly value the work of the IG in
oversight of departmental programs and activities. The funding
provided for fiscal year 2013 supports 27 additional FTE
included in the budget request.
The Committee recognizes that the National Transportation
Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-443)
authorized the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit,
at least annually, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
programs and expenditures, including information security. It
also provided that the NTSB and OIG, in the absence of a direct
appropriation, enter into a reimbursable agreement for any
NTSB-related audits or reviews performed by the OIG. The OIG
continues to perform the annual audit of NTSB's financial
statements under the Chief Financial Officers Act, maintain the
hotline, and conduct follow-up investigations on a cost
reimbursement basis. The OIG has requested $200,000 from NTSB
in its congressional justification for reimbursement of costs
estimated to carry out this function.
Unfair Business Practices.--The bill maintains language
first enacted in fiscal year 2000 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.
Audit Reports.--The Committee requests the IG to continue
forwarding 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.
Oversight of the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority.--The Committee has continuing concerns about the
lack of oversight of the Metropolitan Washington Airport
Authority (MWAA). A recent investigation by the DOT Inspector
General (IG) found a number of cases of questionable sole
source contracting practices, a lack of ethical disclosure
requirements for board members, and an overall lack of
accountability and transparency. In order to improve the
oversight of MWAA, the Committee recommendation includes a new
provision that provides the DOT IG with oversight
responsibilities for MWAA, and requires that MWAA reimburse the
DOT IG for this new responsibility.
Houston METRO Finances.--The Committee directs the IG to
conduct an audit into the financial solvency of Metropolitan
Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas (Houston METRO). As
part of this audit, the IG should conduct a stress test to
determine if Houston METRO has adequate finances to pay for the
construction of new rail lines as well as the operation and
maintenance of existing rail lines and the operation and
maintenance of buses.

Surface Transportation Board

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) was created in the
Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 and is
the successor agency to the Interstate Commerce Commission. The
STB is an economic regulatory and adjudicatory body charged by
Congress with resolving railroad rate and service disputes and
reviewing proposed railroad mergers. The STB is decisionally
independent, although it is administratively affiliated with
the Department of Transportation. The Passenger Rail Investment
and Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-432, (PRIIA), included
new responsibilities for the STB.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $29,310,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 31,250,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 31,250,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +1,940,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $31,250,000
for fiscal year 2012, which is $1,940,000 above the fiscal year
2011 enacted level and equal to the fiscal year 2012 budget
request. The STB is estimated to collect $1,250,000 in fees
which will offset the appropriation for a total program cost of
$30,000,000.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Section 180. The Committee continues the provision allowing
the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use funds for
aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or
allowances, as authorized by law.
Section 181. The Committee continues the provision limiting
appropriations for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the
rate for an Executive Level IV.
Section 182. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in this act for salaries and expenses of more
than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the DOT and
prohibits political and Presidential personnel from being
assigned on temporary detail outside the DOT.
Section 183. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting recipients of funds made available in this Act from
releasing personal information, including Social Security
number, medical or disability information, and photographs from
a driver's license or motor vehicle record, without express
consent of the person to whom such information pertains; and
prohibits the withholding of funds provided in this Act for any
grantee if a state is in noncompliance with this provision.
Section 184. The Committee continues the provision allowing
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 to be used for expenses
incurred for training may be credited to each agency's
respective accounts.
Section 185. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds from being used to make a grant unless the
Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business
days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or
full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is
announced by the Department or its modal administrations, and
directs the Secretary to give concurrent notification for any
``quick release'' of funds from the Federal Highway
Administration's emergency relief program.
Section 186. The Committee continues a provision allowing
funds received from rebates, refunds, and similar sources to be
credited to appropriations of the DOT.
Section 187. The Committee continues a provision allowing
amounts from improper payments to a third party contractor that
are lawfully recovered by the DOT to be available to cover
expenses incurred in the recovery of such payments.
Section 188. The Committee mandates that reprogramming
actions are to be approved or denied solely by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Section 189. The Committee caps the amount of fees the
Surface Transportation Board can charge and collect for late
complaints filed at the amount authorized for court civil suit
filing fees.
Section 190. The Committee includes a provision allowing
funds to the modal administrations to be obligated to the
Office of the Secretary for the costs related to assessments or
reimbursable agreements only when such amounts are for the
costs of goods and services that are purchased to provide a
direct benefit to the applicable modal administration or
administrations.

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Management and Administration

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $1,331,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 1,349,400,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,326,614,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -4,886,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -22,786,000

Management and Administration provides operating support to
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
including salaries and expenses (S&E) for all HUD employees.
The Committee supports the Department's efforts to transform
the way HUD does business and recommends the Department first
and foremost focus its efforts on its human capital
investments. While the Committee appreciates the expanded
Congressional Budget Justifications the Department submitted,
the Committee is appalled with the quality of the information
the Department and Administration provides throughout the year
to explain and justify their budget requests.
HUD does not have adequate knowledge of the number of
people it takes to implement a program and is not transparent
about the budgeting of S&E resources. Further, the information
HUD provides is often wrong, contains mathematical errors and
calls into question HUD's entire Congressional Budget
Justification and the Department's competence in managing its
resources. The Congressional Budget Justification is delivered
to the Committee on behalf of the President's effort to ensure
housing for the nation's most vulnerable and to revitalize
distressed communities. If the Department and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) cannot provide to the Committee
basic data that is accurate, it calls into question the
Administration's competence in administering the Nation's
housing and economic development policies.
Therefore, the Committee directs HUD and OMB to jointly
provide quarterly in-person briefings to the House and Senate
Committee on Appropriations on their efforts to improve data
quality and management of the Department's efforts and S&E
resources. These briefings should provide updates on the
Administration's efforts to improve the Department's budget
process, hiring process, performance appraisal process,
succession planning process and the budgeting of S&E resources.
In addition, these briefings should include reports on the
number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) projected for each office
in the Department compared to last year's actual level and the
authorized level for the current fiscal year.
Full Time Equivalent Levels.--HUD should be embarrassed by
the lack of FTE data it provides and has available internally.
It is completely unacceptable for a Cabinet level-agency to not
have systems in place to track the most fundamental FTE data
including FTE levels, actual onboard position levels, salary
levels, benefits levels and employee tenure. This lack of
essential information led to multiple Anti-Deficiency Act
violations in fiscal year 2011, in which HUD hired more people
than it had resources to pay. To date, HUD has not even tried
to address these problems and thus the Committee has no faith
in HUD's ability to appropriately staff its operations. The
Committee now will direct FTE levels for each office. The
Committee directs the Department to operate fully within these
FTE levels. The Department shall not hire a shadow workforce of
contractors to perform functions normally done by government
employees in order to go above these totals.
Congressional Budget Justification.--The Committee
continues bill language requiring HUD to submit detailed
staffing justifications for each office within the Department.
Reprogramming.--As in previous years, the Committee
reiterates that the Department must limit the reprogramming of
funds between the program, 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, and any deviation from such
approved allocation subject to the normal reprogramming
requirements.
Reorganizations.--The Committee expects notice one month
prior notice to any office, program or activity reorganization.
Additionally, the Committee requires notice 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.
New initiatives.--The Committee reiterates that no changes
may be made to any program, project, or activity if it is
construed to have policy implications, without prior approval
of the Committees on Appropriations.
Relationship between HUD and the Committee on
Appropriations.--The primary relationship between the Committee
and HUD exists via the Departmental budget office. This
relationship, an absolute necessity in structuring the annual
appropriations Act, is based on the sharing of a wide range of
budgetary and cost information. The Committee retains the right
to call upon all offices and agencies within the Department,
but the primary connection between the two entities exists
through the budget office. To that end, the Committee expects
that all offices within HUD will work with the budget office to
provide timely and accurate information for submission to the
Committee. The Department is reminded that directives and
reports mandated in the House or Senate Appropriations reports
are not optional, unless revised or eliminated by the Statement
of Managers accompanying the Act. Finally, the Committee
cautions HUD that Section 405 of the Appropriations Act governs
the creation of new offices and policies.

Administration, Operations, and Management

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $537,789,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 532,546,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 518,068,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -19,721,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -14,478,000

The Administration, Operations, and Management account
funds the salaries and expenses of the Immediate Office of the
Secretary, the Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary and the
Chief Operating Officer, the Office of Hearings and Appeals,
the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, the
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, the
Office of General Counsel, the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, the Office of Public Affairs, the Office of the Chief
Procurement Officer, the Office of Departmental Equal
Employment Opportunity, the Office of Field Policy and
Management, the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities,
the Office of Strategic Planning and Management, the Office of
the Chief Human Capital Officer, the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, and the Center for Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives.
The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer provides
general support services to all offices and divisions
throughout HUD. These services include: management analysis,
human resource management, employee training, performance
analysis, general building and office services, and special
activities directly assigned by the Secretary of HUD.
The Office of Field Policy and Management (FPM) serves as
the principal advisor providing oversight and communicating
Secretarial priorities and policies to field office staff and
HUD clients. The Regional and Field Office Directors act as the
operational managers in each of the field offices and manage
and coordinate cross-program delivery in the field.
The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer's (OCPO)
mission is to provide high-quality acquisition support services
to all HUD program offices by purchasing necessary operational
and mission-related goods and services; provide advice,
guidance and technical assistance to all departmental offices
on matters concerning procurement; assist program offices in
defining and specifying their procurement needs; develop and
maintain all procurement guidance including regulations,
policies, and procedures; and assist in the development of
sound acquisition strategies.
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) provides
leadership in instituting financial integrity, fiscal
responsibility and accountability. The CFO is responsible for
all aspects of financial management, accounting and budgetary
matters; ensuring the Department establishes and meets
financial management goals and objectives; ensuring the
Department is in compliance with financial management
legislation and directives; analyzing budgetary implications of
policy and legislative proposals; and providing technical
oversight with respect to all budget activities throughout the
Department.
Appropriations Attorneys.--During consideration of the
fiscal year 2003 appropriations legislation, it became apparent
to the Committee that both the Committee and the Department
would be better served if the attorneys responsible for
appropriations matters were housed in the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (OCFO), and the fiscal year 2003 Act provided
funds and FTE to the OCFO to accommodate four attorneys
transferred from the Office of General Counsel (OGC). Since
that time, the Committee has routinely received prompt,
accurate, and reliable information from the OCFO on various
appropriations law matters. For fiscal year 2013, the Committee
continues to fund appropriations attorneys in the OCFO and
directs HUD to maintain this responsibility within the OCFO.
The General Counsel, as the chief legal officer and legal
voice of the Department, is the legal adviser to the Secretary
and other principal staff of the Department. It is the
responsibility of the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to
provide legal opinions, advice and services with respect to all
programs and activities, and to provide counsel and assistance
in the development of the Department's programs and policies.
The mission of the Office of Departmental Equal Employment
Opportunity (ODEEO) is to ensure the enforcement of Federal
laws relating to the elimination of all forms of discrimination
in the Department's employment practices. The mission is
carried out through the functions of three divisions: the
Affirmative Employment division, the Alternative Dispute
Resolution division, and the Equal Employment Opportunity
division.
The Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives
conducts outreach, recommends changes to HUD policies and
programs that present barriers to grassroots organizations, and
initiates special projects, such as grant writing training.
The Office of Strategic Planning and Management drives
organizational, programmatic, and operational change across the
Department to maximize efficiency and performance. The office
will facilitate HUD's strategic planning process by identifying
the Department's strategic priorities and transformational
change initiatives, create and manage work plans for targeted
transformation projects, and develop key program performance
measures and targets for monitoring.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $518,068,000 for this account,
which is $19,721,000 below above the level enacted in fiscal
year 2012 and $14,478,000 below the budget request. Further,
the committee directs that the offices within this account
shall have no more than 2,197 Full Time Equivalents. The funds
and allowable FTE shall be distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Funding level FTE level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary............ $3,572,000 18
Office of the Deputy Secretary and Chief 1,206,000 6
Operating Officer...........................
Office of Hearings and Appeals............... 1,711,000 10
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 705,000 5
Utilization.................................
Office of the Chief Financial Officer........ 47,627,000 194
Office of the General Counsel................ 95,102,000 629
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental 2,400,000 17
Relations...................................
Office of Public Affairs..................... 3,502,000 25
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer.... 247,535,000 475
Office of Field Policy and Management........ 47,500,000 342
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer...... 16,563,000 121
Office of the Departmental Equal Employment 3,127,000 20
Opportunity.................................
Center for Faith-Based and Community 1,404,000 8
Initiatives.................................
Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities 2,360,000 17
Office of Strategic Planning and Management.. 4,884,000 30
Office of the Chief Information Officer...... 38,870,000 280
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, the Secretary must provide quarterly status
updates to the Committees regarding pending congressional
reports. The bill also provides that no more than $25,000
provided under the immediate Office of the Secretary shall be
available for the official reception and representation
expenses as the Secretary may determine. In addition, the bill
includes a provision requiring the Department to notify the
Committees on Appropriations one month in advance of any
international travel.

Personnel Compensation and Benefits

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $200,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 211,634,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 206,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +6,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -5,134,000

The Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) oversees the
administration of HUD's Public Housing, Housing Choice Voucher,
and Native American Programs. PIH is responsible for
administering and managing programs authorized and funded by
Congress under the basic provisions of the U.S. Housing Act of
1937.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $206,500,000 for this account,
which is $6,500,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year
2012, and $5,134,000 below the fiscal year 2013 budget request.
The Committee directs that PIH shall have no more than 1,527
FTE.

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $100,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 103,882,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 103,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +3,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -382,000

The Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD)
assists in developing viable communities by promoting
integrated approaches that provide decent housing, a suitable
living environment, and expanded economic opportunities for low
and moderate-income persons. The primary means toward this end
is the development of partnerships among all levels of
government and the private sector, including for-profit and
nonprofit organizations. This Office is responsible for the
effective administration of Community Development Block Grants
(CDBG), Home Investment Partnership (HOME), Brownfields
Economic Development Initiative (BEDI), Self-Help Homeownership
Opportunity Program (SHOP), Homeless Assistance Grants and
other HUD community development programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $103,500,000 for this account,
which is $3,500,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year
2012, and $332,000 below the budget request. The Committee
directs that CPD shall have no more than 810 FTE.
Office of Sustainable Communities.--The Committee provides
$2,360,000 for the Office of Sustainable Communities for the
following limited purposes: to continue overseeing and
providing technical assistance to previous grantees that
received fiscal year 2010 and 2011 funds; to continue
coordinating with other federal agencies to remove unnecessary
federal barriers to local development projects; and to continue
identifying ``sustainability'' best practices within the
Department's existing programs.
The Committee, however, does not include funding for
additional grants and, accordingly, does not include funding
for another grant competition or additional oversight. Instead,
the Committee directs the Department to undertake the following
activities, which are achievable with the resources provided
and within the appropriate scope of this office, as defined in
the previous paragraph:
1. Evaluate the results of the first two pilot programs,
including identifying best practices and lessons learned. Such
evaluation shall include, to the greatest possible extent,
cost-benefit analysis for each grantee's activities, including
cost-savings and efficiencies realized by particular
activities.
2. Determine how best to export such best practices and
lessons learned to all communities interested in undertaking
such efforts using their own funds (including federal funds
over which communities have control). These methods shall not
involve the provision of additional federal grant funds, nor
any unauthorized mandates or funding conditions imposed by the
Department. Rather, they shall reflect cost-free or minimal-
cost methods of sharing with all communities the knowledge
gained by the Department from the two previous taxpayer-funded
pilots. Such methods might include a website, educational
materials, toolkits, etc.
3. Develop a toolkit to enable localities to pool resources
and undertake holistic community development and planning
activities, if they so choose. Such a toolkit might include,
for example, lessons learned from prior grantees, case studies,
model plans, sample legal documents such as ``memoranda of
understanding'' to enable the joint pooling of resources and
joint planning efforts, sample cost estimates, checklists of
various parties to be consulted and the various cost-saving
activities and development efficiencies to be considered, etc.
The Committee includes additional views on the
Administration's proposal for Sustainable Communities within
the Community Development Fund report section.

HOUSING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $391,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 398,832,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 396,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +5,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -2,332,000

The Office of Housing implements programmatic, regulatory,
financial, and operational responsibilities under the
leadership of six deputy assistant secretaries and the field
staff for activities related to Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) multifamily and single family homeownership programs, and
assisted rental housing programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $396,500,000 for this account,
which is $5,000,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year
2012, and $2,332,000 below the budget request. The Committee
directs that the Office of Housing shall have no more than
3,167 FTE. Further, the Committee directs that the Program
Support Division shall have no more than 60 FTE and the newly
formed Office of Housing Counseling shall have no more than 67
FTE.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $22,211,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 21,394,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 22,326,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +115,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. +932,000

The Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R)
directs the Department's annual research agenda to support the
research and evaluation of housing and other departmental
initiatives to improve HUD's effectiveness and operational
efficiencies. Research proposals are determined through
consultation with senior staff from each HUD program office,
the Office of Management and Budget, the Congress, as well as
discussions with key HUD stakeholders. The office addresses all
inquiries regarding key housing economic information such as
the American Housing Survey, Fair Market Rents, Median Family
Income Limits, annual housing goals and oversight of the
Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and mortgage market
analyses.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $22,326,000 for this account,
which is $115,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2012
and $932,000 above the budget request. The Committee directs
that PD&R shall have no more than 151 FTE.

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $72,600,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 74,296,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 72,904,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +304,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -1,392,000

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) is
responsible for developing policies and guidance, and for
providing technical support for enforcement of the Fair Housing
Act and the civil rights statutes. FHEO serves as the central
point for the formulation, clearance and dissemination of
policies, intra-departmental clearances, and public information
related to fair housing issues. FHEO receives, investigates,
conciliates and recommends the issuance of charges of
discrimination and determinations of non-compliance for
complaints filed under Title VIII and other civil rights
authorities. Additionally, FHEO conducts civil rights
compliance reviews and compliance reviews under Section 3.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $72,904,000 for this account,
which is $304,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2012
and $1,392,000 below the budget request. The Committee directs
that the FHEO shall have no more than 581 FTE.

OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $7,400,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 6,816,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 6,816,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -584,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control
(OHHLHC) is directly responsible for the administration of the
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction program authorized by Title X
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The
office also addresses multiple housing-related hazards
affecting the health of residents, particularly children. The
office develops lead-based paint regulations, guidelines, and
policies applicable to HUD programs, and enforces the Lead
Disclosure Rule issued under Title X. For both lead-based paint
and healthy homes issues, the office designs and administers
programs for grants, training, research, education and
information dissemination, and serves as the Department's
central information source for the Secretary, the Congress, HUD
staff, HUD grantees, state and local governments and the
public.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,816,000 for this account, which
is $584,000 below the level enacted in fiscal year 2012 and the
same as the budget request. The Committee directs that OHHLHC
shall have no more than 58 FTE.

Public and Indian Housing

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $18,914,369,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 19,074,283,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 19,134,283,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... 219,914,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. 60,000,000

In fiscal year 2005, the Housing Certificate Fund was
separated into two new accounts: Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
and Project-Based Rental Assistance. This account administers
the tenant-based Section 8 rental assistance program otherwise
known as the Housing Choice Voucher program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $19,134,283,000 for tenant-based
rental assistance, which is $60,000,000 above the budget
request and $219,914,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted
level. Consistent with the budget request, the Committee
continues the advance of $4,000,000,000 of the funds
appropriated under this heading for Section 8 programs to
October 1, 2012.
Voucher Renewals.--The Committee provides $17,237,948,000
for the renewal of tenant-based vouchers. This level is the
same as the budget request and a decrease of $4,403,000 from
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The Department is
instructed to monitor and report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations each quarter on the trends in
Section 8 subsidies and to report on the required program
alterations due to changes in rent or changes in tenant income.
Tenant protection.--The Committee provides $75,000,000 for
tenant protection vouchers, which is equal to the budget
request and the same as the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
Administrative Fees.--The Committee provides $1,575,000,000
for allocations to PHAs to conduct activities associated with
placing and maintaining individuals under Section 8 assistance.
This amount is equal to the budget request and $225,000,000
above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinators.--The Committee
provides $60,000,000 to support the Family Self-Sufficiency
program, which helps section 8 residents find employment and
increase their earnings. The budget request proposed funding
this program as a separate account and opening the program up
to participants outside the Housing Choice Voucher program. HUD
has not demonstrated that this change would improve the
effectiveness of the program or provide additional
opportunities for employment and economic self-sufficiency.
Mainstream Voucher Renewals.--The Committee provides
$111,335,000 to renew expiring Section 811 tenant-based
subsidies. This level is equal to the budget request and
$683,000 below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The
Committee directs HUD to issue guidance to the housing agencies
administering these vouchers to continue to serve people with
disabilities upon turnover.
Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing.--The Committee
provides $75,000,000 for incremental voucher assistance through
the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program. This
funding level is equal to the budget request and the same as
the level provided in fiscal year 2012. This program is
administered in conjunction with the Department of Veterans
Affairs. These vouchers shall remain available for homeless
veterans upon turnover. This funding will add 10,000 new
vouchers for this program, and will support the Department of
Veterans Affairs' (VA) goal of ending homelessness among
veterans within five years. The Committee directs HUD to report
on VASH utilization rates, challenges encountered in the
program, and increases in veteran self-sufficiency by March 1,
2013.
The Committee continues in bill language the direction to
the Department to communicate to each PHA, within 60 days of
enactment, the fixed amount that will be made available to each
PHA for fiscal year 2013. The amount provided in this account
is the only source of federal funds that may be used to renew
tenant-based vouchers. The amounts appropriated here may not be
augmented from any other source.
Section 8 Reforms.--The budget request includes a number of
new authorizing provisions intended to reform the Housing
Choice Voucher program, including several provisions that
result in cost-saving measures that provide administrative
relief to PHAs. The Committee commends the administration for
proposing these reforms, particularly given the increasing
costs of the HCV renewals each year. These rising costs have
crowded out other HUD programs that address key priorities of
community development, home ownership, and homelessness. While
the Committee is fully supportive of many of these reform
proposals, it does not include these new authorizing provisions
in this bill. The Committee urges the authorizing committee to
address these reforms expeditiously, as a failure to reform
this program could result in either a significant cut to the
number of leased vouchers, or deep cuts to other HUD programs.
The Committee urges the administration to continue to work with
the authorizing committees on a reform bill, with the goal of
enactment prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2013.
The Committee also encourages HUD to pursue regulatory and
administrative reforms that do not require new authorizations,
but that relieve the administrative burdens on PHAs.

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(RESCISSION)

The Housing Certificate Fund, until fiscal year 2005,
provided funding for both the project-based and tenant-based
components of the Section 8 program. Project-Based Rental
Assistance and Tenant-Based Rental Assistance are now
separately funded accounts. The Housing Certificate Fund
retains balances from previous years' appropriations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Language is included to allow unobligated balances from
specific accounts may be used to renew or amend Project-Based
Rental Assistance contracts.

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $1,875,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 2,070,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,985,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... 110,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -85,000,000

The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for public
housing capital programs, including public housing development
and modernization. Examples of capital modernization projects
include replacing roofs and windows, improving common spaces,
upgrading electrical and plumbing systems, and renovating the
interior of an apartment.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,985,000,000 for the Public
Housing Capital Fund, which is $85,000,000 below the budget
request and $110,000,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted
level.
Within the amounts provided the Committee directs that:
--No more than $15,345,000 is directed to support the ongoing
Public Housing Financial and Physical Assessment
activities of the Real Estate Assessment Center; and
--$20,000,000 is made available for Emergency Capital needs,
excluding Presidentially declared disasters. The
Committee continues to include language to ensure that
funds are used only for repairs needed due to an
unforeseen and unanticipated emergency event or natural
disaster that occurs during fiscal year 2012;
--$5,000,000 is directed to the support of administrative and
judicial receiverships. The Committee directs that the
Department continue to report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations quarterly on the progress
made at each agency under receivership.

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $3,961,850,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 4,524,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,524,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... 562,150,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The Public Housing Operating Fund subsidizes the costs
associated with operating and maintaining public housing. This
subsidy supplements funding received by public housing
authorities (PHA) from tenant rent contributions and other
income. In accordance with section 9 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended, funds are allocated by formula
to public housing authorities for the following purposes:
utility costs; anti-crime and anti-drug activities, including
the costs of providing adequate security; routine maintenance
cost; administrative costs; and general operating expenses.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,524,000,000 for the federal
share of PHA operating expenses. This amount is equal to the
budget request and $562,150,000 above the fiscal year 2012
enacted level. The Committee does not include language in the
budget request that would allow PHAs to entirely merge their
Capital and Operating Funds and use those funds for either
purpose. While the Committee supports the idea of giving PHAs
flexibility so they can operate more efficiently, HUD has
provided no information on how it would identify and budget for
capital and operating needs in the future if this authority to
merge funds were approved. The Committee would consider a
proposal to provide greater flexibility to PHAs in future years
if HUD provides adequate assurances that it would be able to
accurately assess PHAs' operating and capital needs, and
accurately identify actual expenditures for each of these
activities over time.

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $120,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 150,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -120,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -150,000,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no funding for the Choice
Neighborhoods Initiative. This program remains unauthorized,
and the Committee urges the Administration to work with the
authorizing committees prior to requesting new programs in the
budget request. The Committee believes that many of the
objectives of the Choice Neighborhood Initiative, including
affordable housing and community development, can be achieved
through existing programs at HUD, such as Community Development
Block Grants and the HOME program. The Committee notes that it
has provided funding for these two programs at above the budget
request and above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $0
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 60,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -60,000,000

The budget request proposes to create a consolidated
program to help HUD-assisted residents achieve economic
independence, rather than continue separate programs for
Housing Choice Voucher and Project Based families.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not include funding for this new,
consolidated program, but instead continues to provide
$60,000,000 for Family Self-Sufficiency coordinators in the
Tenant Based Rental Assistance account, consistent with prior
year appropriations Acts. The budget request did not provide
adequate justification for this program change, as it merely
reiterated the mission and success of the existing program
under Tenant Based Rental Assistance.

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $650,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 650,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 650,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The Native American Housing Block Grants program,
authorized by the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4111 et seq.), provides
funds to American Indian tribes and their Tribally Designated
Housing Entities (TDHEs) to address affordable housing needs
within their communities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $650,000,000 for Native American
Housing Block Grants, which is the same as fiscal year 2012 and
the budget request. Of the amounts made available under this
heading:
--$2,000,000 is for Title VI loan guarantees up to $18,332,000.
--$2,000,000 is for national or regional organizations
representing Native American housing interests to
provide training and technical assistance to Indian
housing authorities and TDHEs. The Committee agrees
with the President's budget request that no specific
funds should be set aside for the National American
Indian Housing Council (NAIHC), as NAIHC has
significant carryover and other Indian organizations
are interested in and capable of providing these
services.
HUD Inspection, Technical Assistance, and Training.--The
Committee does not provide additional funding for the
Department to administer inspections, technical assistance, and
training because the Department has five fiscal years' worth of
this funding in carryover balances ($10,000,000). Given the
enormous need in Indian country for technical assistance and
training, the Committee is appalled that such funds are not
being used and recommends no additional funding until the
Department spends down existing funds.
The Committee is advised that the Department plans to
change the way in which these funds are used--namely, by
initiating a competition for organizations and contractors with
experience in Indian housing to provide these services. The
Committee approves this effort to improve the timely use of
these funds and directs the Department to begin such
competition as soon as possible.
Timely Expenditure of Funds.--The Committee continues
language requiring fiscal year 2013 funds to be spent within 10
years.
The Committee reiterates its concern that some tribes carry
enormous backlogs of unspent block grant funds. Unexpended
balances of this proportion call into question the need for any
additional appropriations in this account, which unfortunately
impacts all tribes. The Committee is aware that some tribes
spend all of their funds in a given year and could use
additional grant funding to house tribal members immediately.
Some tribes even take out loans, with interest paid for by the
tribe, to bridge-finance NAHASDA projects in between
appropriations cycles.
The Committee therefore strongly urges tribes to consider
adopting a method by which unexpended funds may be
redistributed for timely use in the upcoming NAHASDA
reauthorization negotiations. There are many ways to structure
such a redistribution, so that overall funds are spent down
(thereby demonstrating a need to increase the overall account)
while not penalizing a tribe's future allocations.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $13,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 13,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -13,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -13,000,000

The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program provides
grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
for housing and housing-related assistance to develop, maintain
and operate affordable housing for eligible low-income native
Hawaiian families.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend funding for this program,
which is $13,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the budget
request. This program is not authorized.

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit subsidy:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012.................... $6,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013................... 7,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................ 6,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012.................... 0
Budget request, fiscal year 2013................... -1,000,000
Limitation on guaranteed loans:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012.................... 360,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013................... 900,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................ 633,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012.................... 273,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013................... -267,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992 establishes a loan guarantee program for Native American
individuals and housing authorities to build new housing or
purchase existing housing on trust land. This program provides
access to private financing that otherwise might be unavailable
because of the unique legal status of Indian trust land.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 in new credit subsidy
for the Section 184 loan guarantee program, which is the same
as fiscal year 2012 and $1,000,000 below the budget request, to
guarantee a total loan volume of $360,000,000, which is
$273,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $267,000,000 below the
budget request.
The Committee includes language allowing the Secretary to
increase loan guarantee fees, which will dramatically increase
the supported loan volume.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program account:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012.................... $386,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013................... 1,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................ - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012.................... -386,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013................... -1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund provides
loan guarantees for native Hawaiian individuals and their
families, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Office of
Hawaiian Affairs, and nonprofit organizations experienced in
planning and developing affordable housing for native
Hawaiians. Loaned funds may be used to purchase, construct,
and/or rehabilitate single-family homes on Hawaiian Home Lands.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend funding for this program,
which is $386,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $1,000,000 below
the budget request. This program is not authorized.

Community Planning and Development

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $332,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 330,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 330,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -2,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
program is authorized by the AIDS Housing Opportunities Act (42
U.S.C. 12901 et seq.). This program provides states and
localities with resources to address the housing needs of low-
income persons living with HIV/AIDS. Providing housing
stability for this population facilitates necessary medical
treatment and is cost-effective. Ninety percent of funding is
distributed by formula to qualifying states and metropolitan
areas based on the cumulative incidences of AIDS reported to
the Centers for Disease Control. The remaining 10 percent of
funding is distributed by HUD through a national competition.
Government recipients are required to have a HUD-approved
Comprehensive Plan or Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS).

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $330,000,000, which is $2,000,000
below fiscal year 2012 and the same as the budget request.
The Committee includes language requiring the Secretary to
continue renewing eligible, expiring HOPWA contracts that were
previously funded under the national competition, before
awarding new competitive grants.
The Committee includes language requiring the Department to
notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of
enactment of this Act.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $3,308,090,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 3,143,090,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,404,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... 95,910,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. 260,910,000

The Community Development Fund, authorized by the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.),
provides funding, primarily through Community Development Block
Grants, to state and local governments and other eligible
entities to carry out community and economic development
activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $3,404,000,000 for the
Community Development Fund account, which is the $95,910,000
above fiscal year 2012 and $260,910,000 above the budget
request.
Of the amounts made available:
--$3,344,000,000 is for the Community Development Block Grants
(``CDBG'') formula program for entitlement communities
and states. This is $396,000,000 above both fiscal year
2012 and the budget request;
--$60,000,000 is for the Native American Housing and Economic
Development Block Grant (also known as ``Indian
CDBG''), which is the same as fiscal year 2012 and the
budget request; and
--$7,000,000, of the amount provided for the regular CDBG
formula program, is for insular areas, per 42 U.S.C.
5306(a)(2), which is the same as fiscal year 2012 and
the budget request.
The Committee includes language requiring the Department to
notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of
enactment of this Act.
Matching Funds.--The Committee notes localities often use
CDBG to serve as the ``local match'' for many other federal
programs. The point of a local match requirement is to have
recipients of federal funding at least ``put some skin the
game'' in exchange for large amounts of federal assistance.
The Committee directs the Department to provide to the
Committees on Appropriations, within 180 days of enactment, a
detailed analysis of how much CDBG funding has been used by
grantees as matching dollars for other federal programs over
the last several fiscal years. The report should detail the
percentage of CDBG funds used to match other federal programs;
which federal programs are being matched; the local match
requirements of such federal programs; what portion of the
local match requirements are being met using CDBG, by federal
program; and what legal authority allows the use of CDBG as a
local match, by federal program.
Sustainable Communities.--The Committee declines to set-
aside any CDBG funds for Sustainable Communities grants,
consistent with the fact that there is no authorization for
this program and that the committee of jurisdiction does not
want this unauthorized program funded. The House Financial
Services Committee noted in its Views and Estimates on the
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget:

[T]he relatively new . . . Sustainable Communities
Initiative [ ], which . . . ha[s] yet to be authorized
the Committee, should not be funded at the expense of
other critical affordable housing programs.

This language was adopted with unanimous and bipartisan
agreement.
The House Committee on Appropriations fully agrees. While
the Committee recommends a higher amount for CDBG than past
years, it is still well below the fiscal year 2010 level of
$3,990,068,000, as observed in the House Financial Services
Committee's budget views. Additionally, the Committee notes
Congress does not yet have sufficient information to assess
whether the prior grants have been successful and should be
continued. The Committee includes language in the Management
and Administration portion of this report that directs data
collection and analysis to enable such an assessment.
Further, the Committee reiterates its concerns from last
year that this proposed grant program is unauthorized, with
amorphous goals that are entirely subjective. If the Department
agrees that community development goals are local in nature,
then should not localities be solely responsible for
determining these goals? The Committee does not agree with
HUD's proposal that bureaucrats with unfettered discretion
should make value judgments (with no meaningful parameters or
other basis in law) on which few communities deserve such
funds. The Committee instead provides all communities with
higher CDBG allocations, so all communities can decide how best
to undertake local development.
To the extent the Department wishes to educate all
communities on the best practices and efficiencies learned by
the Department over the years and to equip all communities with
the tools necessary to undertake holistic and/or regional
development activities, then the Committee provides sufficient
resources within the Office of Sustainable Communities to do
this (as well as to continue overseeing prior grantees).
The Committee strongly urges the Department to include in
such best practices a focus on how integrating housing and
transportation options can meet the special safety needs of
elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit subsidy:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012.................... $5,952,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013................... 0
Recommended in the bill............................ 6,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012.................... +48,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013................... +6,000,000
Limitation on guaranteed loans:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012.................... 240,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013................... 500,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................ 244,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012.................... +4,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013................... -256,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program is a source of
variable and fixed-rate financing for communities undertaking
projects eligible under the Community Development and Block
Grant (CDBG) program. Such activities may include economic
development, housing rehabilitation, public facilities, and
large-scale physical development projects. By pledging their
current and future CDBG allocations to cover the loan amount as
security, communities are able to finance large-scale projects
with a federally guaranteed loan. HUD may require additional
security for a loan, as determined on a case-by-case basis.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Section 108
loan guarantee program, which is $48,000 above fiscal year 2012
and $6,000,000 above the budget request, to guarantee a new
loan volume of $244,000,000.
Subsidy Carryover.--With carryover balances in this
account, the total loan volume in fiscal year 2013 may be up to
$319,000,000. The Committee notes this is more than adequate,
based on recent program demand. In fiscal years 2010 and 2011,
loans were guaranteed in amounts of $278,000,000 and
$290,000,000, respectively.
Proposed Fee.--The Committee declines to enact the
President's proposed new fee structure for Section 108
borrowers. The proposed fee would increase the capital costs of
assisted development projects, which would decrease the ability
of local governments to use the Section 108 guarantee to
finance development in distressed areas and areas of low
capital investment.

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $1,000,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 1,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,200,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... 200,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. 200,000,000

The HOME investment partnerships program provides block
grants to participating jurisdictions (states, units of local
government, Indian tribes, and insular areas) to undertake
activities that expand the supply of affordable housing in the
jurisdiction. HOME block grants are distributed based on
formula allocations. Upon receipt of these Federal funds, state
and local governments develop a housing affordability strategy
to acquire, rehabilitate, or construct new affordable housing,
or to provide rental assistance to eligible families.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,200,000,000 for activities
funded under this account, which is $200,000,000 above fiscal
year 2012 and the budget request.
The Committee continues language to prevent approximately
52 new participating jurisdictions from being permanently added
to the HOME program. It does not make sense to permanently
increase the number of participating jurisdictions, when
overall HOME funding has been significantly decreased in recent
years.
The Committee continues language providing much-needed
reforms to the HOME program. The Department is finalizing
similar regulations.
In the general provisions of Title II, the Committee
includes language making reforms requested by the Department.
The Committee continues language requiring the Department
to notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days
of enactment of this Act.

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $53,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 60,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... 6,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. 60,000,000

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) funds
are distributed through competitive grants to national and
regional nonprofit organizations and consortia that have
experience in providing or facilitating self-help homeownership
opportunities. Grant funds are used for land acquisition and
infrastructure improvements associated with developing new
decent, safe, and sanitary non-luxury dwellings for low-income
persons using the self-help model.
Additionally, Section 4 Capacity Building funds are set-
aside within this account for activities described under
section 4(a) of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.
9816 note). Section 4 funds are awarded competitively to a
limited number of non-profits, which use the funds to develop
the capacity of community development corporations (CDCs) and
community housing development organizations (CHDOs). The CDCs
and CHDOs then undertake community development and affordable
housing activities. Section 4 funds must be matched by
recipients with at least three times the grant amount in
private funding.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for the Self Help
Homeownership Opportunity Program account, which is $6,500,000
above fiscal year 2012 and $60,000,000 above the budget
request. The President's budget proposed eliminating SHOP
altogether and proposed $35,000,000 for Section 4 Capacity
Building activities as a set-aside within the Community
Development Fund (CDF).
Of the total amount, the Committee recommends:
--$20,000,000 for the SHOP program, which is $6,500,000 above
fiscal year 2012 and $20,000,000 above the budget
request;
--$35,000,000 for the Section 4 Capacity Building program, of
which at least $5,000,000 is for rural capacity
building activities. This is the same as fiscal year
2012 and the budget request (though the budget request
funded Section 4 within CDF); and
--$5,000,000 for rural capacity building activities by national
organizations with expertise in rural housing
development, which is the same as fiscal year 2012 and
$5,000,000 above the budget request.
Proposed elimination of SHOP.--The Administration once
again proposes to eliminate all funding for the SHOP program,
citing the HOME program as an acceptable substitute funding
source and citing the rising administrative costs of SHOP
recipients.
Regarding the first point, the Committee notes there are
many differences between the SHOP program, which allows non-
profits to create affordable housing through the unique ``self-
help'' model of homeownership, and the HOME program, which
provides funding to states and local governments to increase
the stock of affordable housing. There are several reasons why
the Committee declines to eliminate SHOP: HOME funding has
decreased significantly in recent years; the self-help and
sweat-equity model enjoys broad Congressional support; and SHOP
funding is much-needed in rural areas, where state-wide HOME
funds are scarce and often set-aside for large tax-credit
developments, rather than for self-help homeownership.
Regarding rising administrative costs, the Committee
directs HUD to evaluate the history of administrative costs in
the SHOP program, including whether HUD's imposition of various
requirements, such as mandatory site visits and Energy-Star
certifications, has resulted in SHOP grantees requiring higher
administrative costs. The Committee directs the Secretary to
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
within 180 days of enactment on whether current administrative
costs are reasonable, what portion of administrative costs are
attributable to HUD requirements, and what actions can be taken
by both HUD and grantees to reduce the administrative burden in
this program.
Prohibition on Demand-Response Initiative.--The Committee
includes language prohibiting the Department from continuing
its ``demand-response'' (or ``place-based'') initiative using
Section 4 funds. In doing so, nearly $20,000,000 in funds
provided between fiscal years 2010 through 2012 will be freed-
up from the Department's control and given back to Section 4
grantees, to be used on capacity building activities.
Since fiscal year 2010, the Department has awarded points
in the Section 4 grant competition to applicants that agree to
set-aside up to 15% of funds for activities to be determined by
HUD. While this may have begun with good intentions, HUD has
failed over three fiscal years to direct how these funds should
be used, thereby causing delays and holding up nearly
$20,000,000. It is clear to the Committee that HUD has no idea
how it intends these funds to be spent, including, for example,
which entities will be assisted by these funds, how the match
requirement of the Section 4 program might be impacted, or how
the geographical and expertise differences of grantees will
influence project assignments.
This amount of delay and unpreparedness by HUD is
inexcusable and particularly ironic, given HUD is the one that
initiated this effort based on a supposed need to respond to
demand. If the Department insists on implementing a new,
unauthorized initiative that essentially rewrites the way in
which grant funds may be used, then HUD should at least have a
plan ready to do it.
Equally inexcusable is the fact that HUD never included
this initiative--which siphons off grantee resources in an
effort to support the Department's OneCPD initiative--in any of
its operating plans, budgets, budget justifications, or any
other documents describing OneCPD or the Transformation
Initiative to Congress. In the future, the Committee directs
HUD to include this and any similar ideas in its budgets,
budget justifications, and operating plans to Congress, prior
to undertaking such activities.
Finally, the Committee notes there is nothing wrong with
encouraging Section 4 recipients to work in under-served areas,
but this goal can be accomplished without HUD taking control of
and holding hostage grantee funds. As a case in point, HUD
already encouraged Section 4 grantees to work in underserved
areas prior to fiscal year 2010 (and thereafter) by awarding
points based on applicants' plans to do such work. This is a
far better, less coercive way for HUD to encourage serving
disadvantaged areas.

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $1,901,190,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 2,231,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,000,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... 98,810,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -231,000,000

The Homeless Assistance Grants account provides funding for
the homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney Act, as
amended by the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid
Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009.
The HEARTH Act streamlined several former homeless
assistance grants into three programs: (1) the Continuum of
Care (CoC) Grant program, which competitively funds new
projects and renewed projects which were previously funded
under three grant programs: the old supportive housing, shelter
plus care, and Section 8 moderate rehabilitation single room
occupancy programs; (2) the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG)
program, which distributes funding by formula to states,
localities, and insular areas, to fund traditional shelter and
outreach activities (as under the old emergency solutions grant
program) and new prevention and re-housing activities, as
authorized by the HEARTH Act; and (3) the Rural Housing
Stability Grants program, which funds activities similar to
those funded by the old rural homelessness grant program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends funding the homeless grant
assistance programs at $2,000,000,000, which is $98,810,000
above fiscal year 2012 and $231,000,000 below the budget
request. Of the total amount provided, the Committee
recommends:
--$286,000,000 for Emergency Solution Grants (ESG), which is
$36,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and the same as the
budget request;
--$1,650,000,000 minimum for Continuum of Care Grants (CoC)
and the Rural Housing Stability Grants, which is
$57,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $287,000,000
below the budget request;
--$6,000,000 for the National Homeless Data Analysis Project,
which is the $1,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and
$2,000,000 below the budget request; and
--$58,000,000 in additional homeless grant funds that the
Department may direct toward Emergency Solution Grants,
Continuum of Care Grants, or the Rural Housing
Stability Grants. However, the Department shall not
direct such funds toward the National Homeless Data
Analysis Project or to new projects under the Continuum
of Care.
Despite the tough budget environment, Congress has
increased or held steady homeless grant funding in recent
years. This year, the Committee recommends an increase of
$98,810,000.
HEARTH Act Implementation.--The Committee supports the
Department's work to address homelessness and to implement the
HEARTH Act as much reasonably possible, given fiscal
constraints. As written, the HEARTH Act would require
$4,400,000,000 each fiscal year to implement while remaining
internally consistent. Such cost is unreasonable in this fiscal
environment. This Committee will not fund everything envisioned
in HEARTH, just as Congress frequently does not fully fund all
ideas envisioned in authorizing bills. The Committee looks
forward to working with the Department to make sure the most
important parts of HEARTH are funded, given fiscal realities.
The Committee notes it has been over 3 years since HEARTH
was signed into law, and still there are no regulations for the
Continuum of Care program. The HEARTH Act required the
Secretary to promulgate regulations for all programs created or
modified by the Act within 12 months of the date of enactment,
which was May 20, 2010. The Committee directs the Department to
finalize such regulations as soon as possible.
Emergency Solutions Grants.--The Committee recommends
increasing Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) to $286,000,000.
The ESG program, authorized by subtitle B of the HEARTH Act,
provides funding for homelessness prevention and rapid re-
housing efforts, in addition to traditional emergency shelter
and outreach activities. Because of the ESG's innovative focus
on preventing and solving homelessness, rather than simply
managing it, the Committee strongly supports this program.
The Committee also continues bill language that makes clear
the ESG program should not receive less than the appropriated
amount, notwithstanding any other provision of law, including
the renewals certification provision in subtitle B of the
HEARTH Act.
Continuum of Care Grants.--The Committee is concerned about
the so-called ``renewal burden'' in the Continuum-of-Care
program. This number is exploding in growth--in the hundreds of
millions each year--and is completely unsustainable. Further,
it has and will continue to crowd-out other homeless funding
including the Rural Housing Stability Grants and the Emergency
Solutions Grants.
The Continuum of Care is supposed to be a competitive
grants program. However, a ``renewal burden'' is antithetical
to the concept of competition. Competition for scarce resources
is what drives better performance and spurs innovation.
Automatic renewals are just the opposite--creating
inefficiencies and removing all incentives to perform better.
To-date, the Department seems uninterested in re-evaluating
programs to ensure the best use of resources through a national
competition. Instead, its approach is to simply renew all
existing grantees and to request even more funding so that
additional localities may be permanently added to the program,
without regard to their subsequent performance. This is
precisely what gives government-run programs a bad name. It is
not the Committee's intention to maintain an entitlement
program for ailing and inflexible service providers. The
Committee reminds providers in the Continuum of Care that these
funds are intended to assist and house the homeless as
effectively and as efficiently as possible.
The Committee is aware the Department is considering ways
in which localities can be encouraged to choose better projects
through a local competitive process. This is a step in the
right direction, but mere encouragement will not solve the
problem of exploding costs on a national scale. The Committee
directs the Department to report to the Committees on
Appropriations within 90 days of enactment on how the Continuum
of Care can be run more like a true competition--on both the
national and local level--assuming scarce resources.
The Committee does not view the Department's ``renewal''
estimate as something that must be funded each year. The
Committee recommends less than the renewal number this year,
and yet the overall appropriation increases by nearly
$100,000,000 over fiscal year 2012. The Committee notes the
HEARTH Act does not expressly require funding renewals. While
the Secretary is permitted to prioritize funding of renewals
and has great latitude to fund renewals, this is only to the
extent sufficient funding is available.

Housing Programs

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $9,339,672,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 8,700,400,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 8,700,400,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -639,672,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The Project-Based Rental Assistance account (PBRA) provides
a rental subsidy to a private landlord tied to a specific
housing unit so that the properties themselves, rather than the
individual living in the unit, remain subsidized. Amounts
provided in this account include funding for the renewal of
expiring project-based contracts, including Section 8, moderate
rehabilitation, and single room occupancy (SRO) contracts,
amendments to Section 8 project-based contracts, and
administrative costs for performance-based, project-based
Section 8 contract administrators and costs associated with
administering moderate rehabilitation and single room occupancy
contracts.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides a total of $8,700,400,000 for the
annual renewal of project-based contracts, of which not less
than $260,000,000 is for the cost of contract administrators.
This funding level is $639,672,000 below the enacted level for
fiscal year 2012 and the same as the budget request.

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $374,627,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 475,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 425,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +50,373,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -50,000,000

The Housing for the Elderly (Section 202) program provides
eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital grants
to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of
housing intended for low income elderly people. In addition,
the program provides project-based rental assistance contracts
(PRAC) to support operational costs for units constructed under
the program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $425,000,000, which is $50,373,000
above the level enacted for fiscal year 2012 and $50,000,000
below the budget request. The Committee includes language
allowing HUD to recoup residual receipts. These funds have
accumulated in situations where the subsidies and tenant rent
payments provided have exceeded actual costs. This language
will permit these funds to be used to provide housing
assistance for seniors who are not currently receiving
assistance instead of the funds continuing to remain unused.
The recommendation allocates funding as follows:
$50,000,000 and all residual receipts
collected for new awards of project rental assistance;
$285,000,000 for the renewal and amendment
of project-based rental assistance contracts (PRAC);
$90,000,000 for service coordinators and the
continuation of congregate services grants.
The Committee continues language relating to the initial
contract and renewal terms for assistance provided under this
heading and language allowing these funds to be used for
inspections and analysis of data by HUD's REAC program office.

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $165,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 150,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 165,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. +15,000,000

The Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811)
program provides eligible private, non-profit organizations
with capital grants to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation
or construction of supportive housing for disabled persons and
provides project-based rental assistance (PRAC) to support
operational costs for such units.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $165,000,000 for Section 811
activities, the same as fiscal year 2012 enacted level, and
$15,000,000 above the budget request. The recommendation
provides up to $96,000,000 for capital grants and PRAC and
$69,000,000 for PRAC renewals. Renewal of mainstream vouchers
is provided under the tenant-based rental assistance account as
proposed by the budget request. The Committee continues
language allowing these funds to be used for inspections and
analysis of data by HUD's REAC program office.

OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $45,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 55,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 45,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -10,000,000

Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968 authorized HUD to provide housing counseling services to
homebuyers, homeowners, low and moderate income renters, and
the homeless.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $45,000,000 funding for housing
counseling, the same as the level enacted in fiscal year 2012
and $10,000,000 below the budget request.

PAYMENT TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $6,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 8,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -2,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -4,000,000

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety
Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing
Improvement Act of 2000, authorized 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 up to $4,000,000 for the
manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees
collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust
Fund established pursuant to the Manufactured Housing
Improvement Act of 2000. The Committee recommends no direct
appropriation for this account. The amount recommended is
$2,500,000 below the level enacted in fiscal year 2012 and
$4,000,000 below the budget request.
In addition, the Committee includes language allowing the
Department to collect fees from program participants for the
dispute resolution and installation programs. These fees are to
be deposited into the trust fund and may be used by the
Department subject to the overall cap placed on the account.

Federal Housing Administration

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation of Limitation of Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans contract expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012..................... $50,000,000 $400,000,000,000 $207,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................... 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 215,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 215,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................. - - - - - - 8,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013................ - - - - - - - - -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) mutual mortgage
insurance program account includes the mutual mortgage
insurance (MMI) and cooperative management housing insurance
funds. This program account covers unsubsidized programs,
primarily the single-family home mortgage program, which is the
largest of all the FHA programs. The cooperative housing
insurance program provides mortgages for cooperative housing
projects of more than five units that are occupied by members
of a cooperative housing corporation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan
commitments in the MMI program account: $400,000,000,000 for
loan guarantees and $50,000,000 for direct loans. The
recommendation also includes $215,000,000 for administrative
contract expenses, of which $71,500,000 is transferred to the
Working Capital Fund for development and modifications to
information technology systems that serve programs or
activities under the FHA. The Committee continues language as
requested, appropriating additional administrative expenses in
certain circumstances.
The Committee's recommendation for administrative contract
expenses is $8,000,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year
2012 and the same as the FY 2013 budget request.

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation of Limitation of
direct loans guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012. $20,000,000 $25,000,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013 20,000,000 25,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill ........ 20,000,000 25,000,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year - - - - - -
2012.......................
Budget request, fiscal year - - - - - -
2013.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) general and
special risk insurance (GI and SRI) program account includes 17
different programs administered by FHA. The GI fund includes a
wide variety of insurance programs for special-purpose single
and multifamily loans, including loans for property
improvements, manufactured housing, multifamily rental housing,
condominiums, housing for the elderly, hospitals, group
practice facilities, and nursing homes. The SRI fund includes
insurance programs for mortgages in older, declining urban
areas that would not be otherwise eligible for insurance,
mortgages with interest reduction payments, and mortgages for
experimental housing and for high-risk mortgagors who would not
normally be eligible for mortgage insurance without housing
counseling.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan
commitments for the general and special risk insurance program
account as requested: $25,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and
$20,000,000 for direct loans, which is the same as fiscal year
2012 and the budget request

Government National Mortgage Association

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation of Administrative
guaranteed loans contract expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012. $500,000,000,000 $19,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013 500,000,000,000 21,000,000
Recommended in the bill......... 500,000,000,000 20,500,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year - - - 1,000,000
2012.......................
Budget request, fiscal year - - - -500,000
2013.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Guarantee of Mortgage-Backed Securities Program
facilitates the financing of residential mortgage loans insured
or guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Rural Housing Services
program. The Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)
guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest on
securities issued by private service institutions such as
mortgage companies, commercial banks, savings banks, and
savings and loan associations that assemble pools of mortgages
and issue securities backed by the pools. In turn, investment
proceeds are used to finance additional mortgage loans.
Investors include non-traditional sources of credit in the
housing market such as pension and retirement funds, life
insurance companies, and individuals.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation includes a $500,000,000,000 limitation
on loan commitments for mortgage-backed securities as requested
and $20,500,000 for the personnel costs of GNMA, to be funded
by Commitment and Multiclass fees. The recommendation for
personnel costs is $1,000,000 more than fiscal year 2012 and
$500,000 below the budget request.

Policy Development and Research

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $46,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 52,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 52,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +6,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

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 the budget request of $52,000,000
for this account, which is an increase of $6,000,000 over the
level enacted in fiscal year 2012.
The Committee commends the Department for making a greater
investment in the Office of Policy Research and Development
(PD&R) and giving the office a greater decision-making role in
departmental management. Before proposing a new program or a
change to an existing program, HUD should first consult with
PD&R on any research or findings to support the proposal and
the cost effectiveness, and the budget office to ensure the
proposal fits in to the overall spend plan and is properly
accounted for. The Department would gain a lot of credibility
if more decisions and programs were more thoroughly vetted with
PD&R and the budget office prior to proposals to the Congress
or stakeholders.

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $70,847,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 68,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 68,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -2,847,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) is
responsible for developing policies and guidance, and for
providing technical support for enforcement of the Fair Housing
Act and the civil rights statues. FHEO serves as the central
point for the formulation, clearance and dissemination of
policies, intra-departmental clearances, and public information
related to fair housing issues. FHEO receives, investigates,
conciliates and recommends the issuance of charges of
discrimination and determinations of non-compliance for
complaints filed under Title VIII and other civil rights
authorities. Additionally, FHEO conducts civil rights
compliance reviews and compliance reviews under Section 3.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $68,000,000
for this account, which is $2,847,000 below the level enacted
in fiscal year 2012. Of the funds provided, $300,000 is for the
Limited English Proficiency Initiative, $1,500,000 is for the
National Fair Housing Training Academy, and $23,700,000 is for
the Fair Housing Assistance Program. Of the $42,500,000 set
aside for the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, $29,250,000 is
for private enforcement activities, $8,750,000 is for education
and outreach activities, and $4,500,000 is for the Fair Housing
Organization Initiative.

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL AND HEALTHY HOMES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $120,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 120,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 120,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes is
responsible for administering the Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction program authorized by Title X of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992. The office also addresses
multiple housing-related health hazards through the Healthy
Homes Initiative, pursuant to the Secretary's authority in
sections 501 and 502 of the Housing and Urban Development Act
of 1970 (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1 and 1701z-2).
The office develops lead-based paint regulations,
guidelines, and policies applicable to HUD programs and
enforces the Lead Disclosure Rule issued under Title X. For
both lead-related and Healthy Homes issues, the office designs
and administers programs for grants, training, research,
demonstration, and education.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $120,000,000
for the lead programs, which is equal to the level enacted in
fiscal year 2012 bill. Of the amount provided, the Committee
recommends $10,000,000 for the Healthy Homes Initiative, and
not less than $45,000,000 for the lead hazard reduction
program.

Management and Administration

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $199,035,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 170,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 175,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... -24,035,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. +5,000,000

The Working Capital Fund was established pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Sec. 3535 to provide necessary capital for the
development of, modifications to, and infrastructure for
Department-wide information technology systems, and for the
continuing operation of both Department-wide and program-
specific information technology systems.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $175,000,000 in direct
appropriations for the Working Capital Fund (WCF) to support
Department-wide information technology system activities,
$24,035,000 less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and
$5,000,000 more than the budget request. In addition to the
direct appropriation for Department-wide systems, funds are
transferred from FHA.
The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 over the
budget request specifically for the purpose of creating a
system to centrally account for, control, oversee, and report
on full-time equivalents (FTE) numbers and expenses across the
Department. The Committee is astonished that no basic system
exists in the budget office or anywhere in the Department. To
answer a simple FTE-related question from the Committee, the
budget office is forced to put out a call for data to each
office and no system exists to verify the responses. Further,
the Office of the Chief Financial Officer does not have a
reliable method for monitoring the FTE burn rate across each
office or the Department, which explains a number of Anti-
Deficiency Act violations in recent years. There is one
Department, not a loose cooperative of stand-alone offices. The
Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer are
responsible for the allocation and expenditure of these funds
and the Committee is adamant on oversight. The Committee
directs HUD to report on this effort and outline a plan for
creating such a system within the Department's fiscal year 2013
operating plan.
As for the $60,000,000 HUD requested through the
Transformation Initiative for investments in both specific
office and department-wide information technology (IT) systems,
the Committee directs HUD to use its current statutory
authority to establish a true and traditional WCF, complete
with work agreements, contracts, and fund transfers to pay for
IT investments. The $175,000,000 provided by direct
appropriation should be enough to start the year and get the
WCF and work agreements in place to bring in the remaining
$60,000,000 by the end of the year. Instead of requesting
transfer authority under the Transformation Initiative, the
Department should make the new WCF a part of the fiscal year
2014 budget request, similar to the Department of
Transportation. A new WCF will ensure the office or offices
affected by the Department's IT investments and maintenance
will be active participants in the decision-making and
financing of the Department's systems, and more importantly,
that the Chief Financial Officer will have direct control and
oversight over those systems and decisions. The Committee views
the creation of a true WCF to be a more sustainable protocol
than the Transformation Initiative.
The Committee has retained language that precludes the use
of these or any other funds appropriated previously to the
Working Capital Fund or program offices for transfer to the
Working Capital Fund that would be used or transferred to any
other entity in HUD or elsewhere for the purposes of
implementing the Administration's ``e-Gov'' initiative without
the Committee's approval in HUD's operating plan. The Committee
directs that funds appropriated for specific projects and
activities should not be reduced or eliminated in order to fund
other activities inside and outside of HUD without the
expressed approval of the Committee. HUD is not to contribute
or participate in activities that are specifically precluded in
legislation, unless the Committee agrees to a change.
Further, the Committee retains language requiring the
General Accountability Office (GAO) to audit and oversee HUD's
information technology programs, development and investments.
While working with GAO, HUD has made vast improvements to its
IT management, the Committee views GAO's continued
participation to be crucial to HUD's efforts.

Office of Inspector General

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $124,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 125,600,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 125,600,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +1,600,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The Office of Inspector General (IG) provides agency-wide
audit and investigative functions to identify and correct
management and administrative deficiencies that create
conditions for existing or potential instances of waste, fraud,
and mismanagement. The audit function provides internal audit,
contract audit, and inspection services. Contract audits
provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on
accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation,
award, administration, re-pricing, and settlement of contracts.
Internal audits evaluate all facets of agency operations.
Inspection services provide detailed technical evaluations of
agency operations. The investigative function provides for the
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities
involving programs, personnel, and operations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $125,600,000 for the Office of
Inspector General, which is $1,600,000 above the fiscal year
2012 enacted level and the same as the budget request.

Transformation Initiative

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $50,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 50,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. +50,000,000

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; (3) technical
assistance and capacity building.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $50,000,000 for activities under the
Transformation Initiative (TI), consistent with the fiscal year
2012 appropriation. The budget requested authority to transfer
up to 0.5 percent from various other HUD accounts, but not to
exceed $120,000,000 in total funds.
The Committee finds the mass transfer to be an awkward
method of funding the activities under this account and
distorts the resources required and available under the various
donor program accounts. A more transparent method is to simply
appropriate funds for the transformation activities directly.
The Committee again strongly urges HUD to consider
incorporating a direct appropriation for TI in the fiscal year
2014 budget materials.
Despite the decision to reject HUD's transfer proposal, the
Committee supports HUD's efforts to reform its operations and
take a hard look at how the Department delivers services,
evaluates programs, and seeks to find better, more effective,
and hopefully more cost efficient ways to fulfill its mission.
The Committee retains language requiring HUD to submit a
plan for the fiscal year 2013 funds. Committee's recommendation
provides funds for the following initiatives:
$1,000,000 for research-ready data
integration;
$2,000,000 for biennial research NOFAs;
$1,000,000 for the Multidisciplinary
Research Team;
$1,000,000 for the HOME affordability study;
$1,000,000 for emerging research issues;
$1,000,000 for Choice Neighborhoods
evaluations;
$5,000,000 for the rental assistance
demonstration evaluation;
$7,000,000 for homeless programs
demonstrations;
$2,000,000 for the moving to work
evaluation;
$2,000,000 for Section 811 project rental
assistance demonstration evaluations;
$2,000,000 for the senior and services
demonstration; and
$25,000,000 for technical assistance.

General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban Development

Section 201. The Committee continues the provision that
relates to the division of financing adjustment factors.
Section 202. The Committee continues the provision that
prohibits available funds from being used to investigate or
prosecute lawful activities under the Fair Housing Act.
Section 203. The Committee continues by reference the two
provisions in prior appropriations Acts that correct the HOPWA
formula and make other technical corrections.
Section 204. The Committee continues language requiring
funds appropriated to be distributed on a competitive basis in
accordance with the Department of Housing and Urban Development
Reform Act of 1989.
Section 205. The Committee continues language regarding the
availability of funds subject to the Government Corporation
Control Act and the Housing Act of 1950.
Section 206. The Committee continues language regarding
allocation of funds in excess of the budget estimates.
Section 207. The Committee continues language regarding the
expenditure of funds for corporations and agencies subject to
the Government Corporation Control Act.
Section 208. The Committee continues language requiring the
Secretary to provide quarterly reports on uncommitted,
unobligated and excess funds in each departmental program and
activity.
Section 209. The Committee continues the provision that
requires that the Administration's budget and the Department's
budget justifications for fiscal year 2014 shall be submitted
in the identical account and sub-account structure provided in
this Act.
Section 210. The Committee continues the provision that
exempts PHA Boards in Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi and the
County of Los Angeles from public housing resident
representation requirement.
Section 211. The Committee continues the provision that
authorizes HUD to transfer debt and use agreements from an
obsolete project to a viable project, provided that no
additional costs are incurred, and other conditions are met.
Section 212. The Committee continues the provision that
prohibits the IG from changing the basis on which the audit of
GNMA is conducted.
Section 213. The Committee continues the provision that
sets forth requirements for eligibility for Section 8 voucher
assistance, and includes consideration for persons with
disabilities.
Section 214. The Committee continues the provision that
distributes Native American housing block grant funds to the
same Native Alaskan recipients as 2005.
Section 215. The Committee continues the provision that
authorizes the Secretary to insure mortgages under Section 255
of the National Housing Act.
Section 216. The Committee continues the provision that
instructs HUD on managing and disposing of any multifamily
property that is owned by HUD.
Section 217. The Committee continues the provision that
provides that the Secretary shall report quarterly on HUD's use
of all sole source contracts.
Section 218. The Committee continues the provision that
authorizes the Secretary to waive certain requirements on
adjusted income for certain assisted living projects for
counties in Michigan.
Section 219. The Committee continues the provision that
allows the recipient of a section 202 grant to establish a
single-asset nonprofit entity to own the project and may lend
the grant funds to such entity.
Section 220. The Committee continues the provision that
allows amounts provided under the Section 108 loan guarantee
program may be used to guarantee notes or other obligations
issued by any State on behalf of non-entitlement communities in
the State.
Section 221. The Committee continues the provision that
instructs HUD that PHAs that own and operate 400 units or fewer
of public housing are exempt from asset management
requirements.
Section 222. The Committee continues the provision that
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 QHWRA.
Section 223. The Committee continues the provision that
provides that no employee of the Department shall be designated
as an allotment holder unless the CFO determines that such
allotment holder has received training.
Section 224. The Committee continues the provision that
provides that funding for indemnities is limited to non-
programmatic litigation and is restricted to the payment of
attorney fees only.
Section 225. The Committee continues language regarding
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) announcements and
publication.
Section 226. The Committee continues the provision that
authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 5 percent of funds
appropriated under the heading ``Administration, Operations,
and Management.''
Section 227. The Committee continues the provision that
allows the Disaster Housing Assistance Programs to be
considered a program of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the purpose of income verifications and
matching.
Section 228. The Committee includes a provision regarding
PHA salary levels.
Section 229. The Committee includes a provision that allows
critical access hospitals to be insured under section 242 of
the National Housing Act.
Section 230. The Committee includes a new provision that
allows the Secretary to increase loan guarantee fees under the
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program.
Section 231. The Committee includes a new provision that
facilitates evictions in HOME-funded properties when necessary
to ensure safety and that allows recaptured HOME technical
assistance funding to be redistributed in the formula program.
Section 232. The Committee includes a provision which
extends the availability of Hope VI funds appropriated in prior
years.
Section 233. The Committee includes a new provision that
requires annual, rather than quarterly, reporting by the
Secretary regarding duplication of benefits in Community
Development Fund disaster funding.
Section 234. The Committee includes a provision that
repeals the paragraphs under the heading ``Flexible Subsidy
Fund.''

TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIES

United States Access Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $7,400,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 7,400,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 7,400,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

The United States Access Board (Access Board) was
established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
and is the only Federal Agency whose primary mission is
accessibility for people with disabilities. The Access Board is
responsible for developing guidelines under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Architectural Barriers Act, and the
Telecommunications Act. The Access Board is responsible for
developing standards under section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act for accessible electronic and information technology used
by Federal agencies. The Access Board also enforces the
Architectural Barriers Act and provides training and technical
assistance on the guidelines and standards it develops.
The Access Board has been given responsibilities under the
Help America Vote Act to serve on the Election Assistance
Commission's Board of Advisors and Technical Guidelines
Development Committee. Additionally, the Board maintains a
small research program that develops technical assistance
materials and provides information needed for rulemaking.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $7,400,000
for the operations of the Access Board, which is the same as
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

Federal Maritime Commission

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $24,100,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 26,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 25,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +900,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -1,000,000

Established in 1961, the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC)
is an independent government agency, responsible for the
regulation of oceanborne transportation in the foreign commerce
of the United States. FMC policy focuses on 1) maintaining an
efficient and competitive international ocean transportation
system; and 2) protecting the public from unlawful, unfair, and
deceptive ocean transportation practices. The Federal Maritime
Commission monitors ocean common carriers, marine terminal
operators, conferences, ports, and ocean transportation
intermediaries to ensure they maintain just and reasonable
practices. Among other activities, FMC also maintains a trade
monitoring and enforcement program, monitors the laws and
practices of foreign governments and their impacts on shipping
conditions in the U.S. and enforces special regulatory
requirements as they apply to controlled carriers.
The principal shipping statutes administered by the FMC are
the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101-41309), the Foreign
Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. 42301-42307), Section
19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. 42101-42109),
and Public Law 89-777 (46 U.S.C. 44101-44106).

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Federal
Maritime Commission, which is $900,000 above the fiscal year
2012 appropriation and $1,000,000 less than the budget request.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $20,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 22,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 25,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... 4,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. 3,000,000

The Amtrak Inspector General is expected to be an
independent, objective unit responsible for detecting and
preventing fraud, waste, abuse, and violations of law and for
promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness at Amtrak.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for Amtrak's Office of
Inspector General (Amtrak OIG), which is $4,500,000 above the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level and $3,000,000 above the
proposed in the fiscal year 2013 budget. This additional
funding should be used to review the processes and procedures
Amtrak and FRA are using to distribute the Bridges and Tunnels
Grants within Amtrak's Capital and Debt service account.
As in fiscal year 2012, the Committee continues to fund the
Amtrak OIG as a separate entity and denies the budget's request
to fund the Amtrak OIG through a direct grant from the Federal
Railroad Administration.
Budget Justification.--The Committee directs the Amtrak OIG
to submit to the Committees on Appropriations a comprehensive
budget justification for fiscal year 2012 in similar format and
substance to those submitted by other agencies of the Federal
government and similar to the Amtrak OIG submission last year.

National Transportation Safety Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $102,400,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 102,400,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 102,400,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. - - -

Initially established along with the Department of
Transportation (DOT), the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent
federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every
civil aviation accident in the United States, as well as
significant accidents in other modes of transportation--
railroad, highway, marine and pipeline--and issuing safety
recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents. Although
it has always operated independently, the NTSB relied on the
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 effective April
of 1975.
In addition to its investigatory duties, the NTSB is
responsible for maintaining the government's database of civil
aviation accidents and conducting special studies of
transportation safety issues of national significance.
Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international
treaties, the 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. The NTSB also serves as
the `court of appeals' for any airman, mechanic or mariner
whenever certificate action is taken by the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the U.S. Coast
Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are assessed by the
FAA. In addition, the NTSB operates the NTSB Academy in
Ashburn, Virginia.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $102,400,000 for the salaries and
expenses of the NTSB, which is equal to the fiscal year 2012
level and equal to the budget request. The Committee commends
the NTSB for requesting a budget at a hard freeze at fiscal
year 2012 enacted levels, even though its budget consists
largely of salaries and expenses. The leadership of the NTSB is
to be commended for this recognition of the current era of
fiscal austerity.
NTSB Academy.--The agency is encouraged to continue to seek
additional opportunities to lease out, or otherwise generate
revenue from the NTSB Academy, so that the agency can
appropriately focus its resources on the important
investigative work that is central to the agency's mission. In
addition, the agency is again directed to submit detailed
information on the costs associated with the NTSB Academy, as
well as the revenue the facility is expected to generate, as
part of the fiscal year 2014 budget request.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $215,300,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 213,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 225,300,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... +10,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. +12,300,000

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by
the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978).
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation now operates under the
trade name `NeighborWorks America.' NeighborWorks America helps
local communities establish working partnerships between
residents and representatives of the public and private
sectors. These partnership-based organizations are independent,
tax-exempt, community-based nonprofit entities, often referred
to as NeighborWorks organizations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $225,300,000
for fiscal year 2012, which is $10,000,000 above the fiscal
year 2012 enacted level and $12,300,000 above the budget
request.
In total, $80,000,000 is provided for the National
Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling (NFMC) program, which is the
same as the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and $5,900,000 below
the fiscal 2013 budget request. The NFMC has provided
foreclosure counseling for over one million families to date.
This program has also provided training for more than 4,000
foreclosure counselors. NeighborWorks has done an admirable job
in adapting to different responsibilities and fulfilling its
mission.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012....................... $3,300,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2013...................... 3,600,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,300,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2012................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2013.................. -300,000

The mission of the United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness (USICH) is ``to coordinate the Federal response to
homelessness and to create a national partnership at every
level of government and with the private sector to reduce and
end homelessness in the nation while maximizing the
effectiveness of the Federal Government in contributing to the
end of homelessness.'' 42 U.S.C. 11311 (2012).
The USICH was reauthorized in 2009 in the Homeless
Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH)
Act, P.L. 111-22, with a termination date of October 1, 2010.
This date was extended to October 1, 2015.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,300,000 for the USICH, which is
the same as fiscal year 2012 and $300,000 below the budget
request.
On June 22, 2010, the USICH fulfilled one of its core
responsibilities under the HEARTH Act by publishing the
nation's first comprehensive plan to prevent and end
homelessness. The plan, ``Opening Doors: The Federal Strategic
Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness,'' will continue to serve
as the roadmap for future coordinated efforts between the
nineteen USICH member agencies and local and state partners.
The Committee encourages the nineteen USICH agencies to use
the next few years to establish good working relationships and
interagency efficiencies that will endure past the USICH's
sunset date in 2015.

TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT

Section 401. The Committee continues the provision
requiring pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in
this Act or previous appropriations Acts.
Section 402. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in
regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
Section 403. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting obligations beyond the current fiscal year and
prohibiting transfers of funds unless expressly provided in
this Act.
Section 404. The Committee continues the provision limiting
consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement
contracts.
Section 405. The Committee continues the provision
specifying reprogramming procedures by subjecting the
establishment of new offices and reorganizations to the
reprogramming process.
Section 406. The Committee continues a provision that
ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances may remain
available for certain purposes.
Section 407. The Committee continues the provision
requiring agencies and departments funded in this Act to report
on all sole source contracts.
Section 408. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting employee training not directly related to the
performance of official duties.
Section 409. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds from being used for any project that seeks to
use the power of eminent domain unless eminent domain is
employed only for a public use.
Section 410. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the transfer of funds made available in this Act to
any instrumentality of the United States Government except as
authorized by this Act or any other appropriations Act.
Section 411. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to permanently
replace an employee intent on returning to his past occupation
after completion of military service.
Section 412. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in this Act from being used unless the
expenditure is in compliance with the Buy American Act.
Section 413. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds from being appropriated or made available to
any person or entity that has been found to violate the Buy
American Act.
Section 414. The Committee continues the provision that
prohibits funds for first-class airline accommodations in
contravention of section 301-10.122 and 301-10.123 of title 41
CFR.
Section 415. The Committee continues the provision which
prohibits funds in this Act or any prior Act from going to the
group ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied
organizations.
Section 416. The Committee includes a provision that
prohibits convicted felons from receiving certain Federal
funds.
Section 417. The Committee includes a provision that
prohibits funding to corporations with any unpaid Federal tax
liability.
Section 418. The Committee includes a provision that
establishes a spending reduction account.

House of Representatives Reporting Requirements

The following materials are submitted in accordance with
various requirements of the Rules of the House of
Representatives:

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

There were no rollcall votes.

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure
authorizes funding: The Committee on Appropriations considers
program performance, including a program's success in
developing and attaining outcome-related goals and objectives,
in developing funding recommendations.

RESCISSION OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying
bill:

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration, Research, Engineering &
Development......................................... $26,183,998
Federal Railroad Administration, Next Generation High
Speed Rail.......................................... 1,973,000
Federal Railroad Administration, Northeast Corridor
Improvement Program................................. 4,419,000
Federal Transit Administration, Formula and Bus Grants.. 72,495,539
Federal Transit Administration, Capital Investment
Grants.............................................. 11,429,055
Federal Transit Administration, Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority.............................. 523,000
Federal Transit Administration, University
Transportation Research............................. 292,554
Federal Transit Administration, Job Access and Reverse
Commute Grants...................................... 14,661,719
Federal Transit Administration, Research, Training &
Human Resources..................................... 247,579
Federal Transit Administration, Interstate Transfer
Grants.............................................. 2,661,568
Federal Transit Administration, Urban Discretionary
Accounts............................................ 578,353

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Housing Certificate Fund................................ Such sums
as available

APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted
regarding the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying
bill.

UNDER TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account to which
Account from which the transfer the transfer is Amount
is made made
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary......... Office of the 5% of certain
Secretary. funds subject to
conditions
Federal Aviation Administration. Federal Aviation 2% of certain
Administration. funds subject to
conditions
FHWA: Limitation on Appalachian $3,220,000
administrative expenses. Regional
Commission.
MARAD: Operations & Training.... Maritime $3,750,000
Guaranteed Loan
(Title XI)
Program Account.
Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Pipeline Safety... $1,500,000
Safety Administration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNDER TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account to which
Account from which the transfer the transfer is Amount
is made made
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHA MMI Program Account......... Working Capital $71,500,000
Fund.
Shelter Plus Care............... Homeless Such sums as
Assistance Grants. available
Administration, Operations and Program Office 5% or $5,000,000,
Management. Salaries and whichever is
Expenses. less, subject to
conditions
Program Office Salaries and Administration, 5% or $5,000,000,
Expenses. Operations and whichever is
Management. less, subject to
conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS

Neither the bill nor the report contains any Congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as
defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(E) (RAMSEYER RULE)

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE VII--AVIATION PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

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) * * *
(b) Air Traffic Control Contract Program.--
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) Contract air traffic control tower program.--
(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(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,
with the maximum allowable local cost share
capped at 20 percent.

* * * * * * *

----------

NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

* * * * * * *
TITLE II--MORTGAGE INSURANCE

* * * * * * *

MORTGAGE INSURANCE FOR HOSPITALS

Sec. 242. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) Termination of Exemption for Critical Access Hospitals.--
(1) In general.--The exemption for critical access
hospitals under subsection (b)(1)(B) shall have no
effect after [July 31, 2011] July 31, 2016.

* * * * * * *

----------

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992

SEC. 184. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR INDIAN HOUSING.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

[(d) Guarantee Fee.--The Secretary shall fix and collect a
guarantee fee for the guarantee of loans under this section,
which may not exceed the amount equal to 1 percent of the
principal obligation of the loan. The fee shall be paid by the
lender at time of issuance of the guarantee and shall be
adequate, in the determination of the Secretary, to cover
expenses and probable losses. The Secretary shall deposit any
fees collected under this subsection in the Indian Housing Loan
Guarantee Fund established under subsection (i).]
(d) Guarantee Fee.--The Secretary shall establish and
collect, at the time of issuance of the guarantee, a fee for
the guarantee of loans under this section, in an amount not
exceeding 3 percent of the principal obligation of the loan.
The Secretary may also establish and collect annual premium
payments in an amount not exceeding 1 percent of the remaining
guaranteed balance (excluding the portion of the remaining
balance attributable to the fee collected at the time of
issuance of the guarantee). The Secretary shall establish the
amount of the fees and premiums by publishing a notice in the
Federal Register. The Secretary shall deposit any fees and
premiums collected under this subsection in the Indian Housing
Loan Guarantee Fund established under subsection (i).

* * * * * * *

----------

CRANSTON-GONZALEZ NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT

* * * * * * *
TITLE II--INVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING

* * * * * * *

Subtitle A--HOME Investment Partnerships

* * * * * * *

SEC. 225. TENANT AND PARTICIPANT PROTECTIONS.

(a) * * *
(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 title 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).

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B--Community Housing Partnership

SEC. 231. SET-ASIDE FOR COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) * * *
(b) Recapture and Reuse.--If any funds reserved under
subsection (a) 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 233, 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 217(c).]

* * * * * * *

----------

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

* * * * * * *

TITLE I

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO ADDRESS HURRICANES IN THE GULF
OF MEXICO

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 9

* * * * * * *

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 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

* * * * * * *

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

* * * * * * *

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 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.

* * * * * * *

----------

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

(Public Law 110-252)

* * * * * * *

TITLE III--NATURAL DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY

* * * * * * *

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 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 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.

* * * * * * *

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES
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 occuring 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 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.

* * * * * * *

----------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

(Public Law 110-161)

AN ACT Making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign
operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2008, and for other purposes.

* * * * * * *
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.]

* * * * * * *

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following statements are
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the
application of existing law.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Salaries and expenses'' specifying certain amounts for
individual offices of the Office of the Secretary and official
reception and representation expenses, and specifying transfer
authority among offices.
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Salaries and expenses'' which would allow crediting the
account with up to $2,500,000 in user fees; prohibits
establishment of Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``Financial Management Capital'' which provides funds to
upgrade DOT's financial systems and processes.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``Cyber Security Initiatives'' which provides funds for
information technology security upgrades.
Language is included for the Office of Civil Rights, which
is responsible for advising the Secretary on civil rights and
equal opportunity issues and ensuring the full implementation
of the civil rights laws and departmental civil rights policies
in all official actions and programs.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``Transportation planning, research, and development'' which
provides funds for conducting transportation planning,
research, systems development, development activities and
making grants, and makes funds available until expended.
Language is included that limits operating costs and
capital outlays of the Working Capital Fund for the Department
of Transportation; provides that services shall be provided on
a competitive basis, except for non-DOT entities; restricts the
transfer for any funds to the Working Capital Fund with
approval; and limits special assessments or reimbursable
agreements levied against any program, project or activity
funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable
agreements that are presented to and approved by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``Minority business resource center'' which limits the amount
of loans that can be subsidized, and provides funds for
administrative expenses.
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Minority business outreach'' specifying that funds may be
used for business opportunities related to any mode of
transportation, and limits the availability of funds.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``Payments to air carriers'' that provides funds from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, allows the Secretary of
Transportation to consider subsidy requirements when
determining service to a community, limits funds only to
communities served in fiscal year 2011, eliminates the
requirement that carriers use at least 15-passenger aircraft,
and allows the Secretary to repay any funds borrowed from the
Federal Aviation Administration to fund the essential air
service program.
Section 101 prohibits the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation from approving assessments or reimbursable
agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal
administrations in this Act, unless such assessments or
agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for
Congressional notification.
Section 102 allows the Secretary or his designee to work
with States and State legislators to consider proposals related
to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities.
Section 103 allows the Department to use the Working
Capital Fund to provide transit benefits to Federal employees.
Section 104 sets administrative requirements of the
Department's Credit Council.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that provides funds for
operations and research related to commercial space
transportation, administrative expenses for research and
development, establishment of air navigation facilities,
establishment of air navigation facilities, the operation
(including leasing) and maintenance of aircraft, subsidizing
the cost of aeronautical charts and maps sold to the public,
lease or purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement;
funds for certain aviation program activities; and specifies
transfer authority among offices.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' permitting transfer of funds, as
specified.
Language is included requiring a controller workforce plan
by March 31 of each fiscal year required by section 221 of
Public Law 108-176 and reduces the appropriation by $100,000
for each day the report is late.
Language is included requiring a similar March 31 report on
flight standards and aircraft certification staff and reduces
the appropriation by $100,000 for each day the report is late.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' permitting the use of funds to
enter into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard setting
organization to develop aviation safety standards.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds
for new applicants of the second career training program.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds to plan,
finalize, or implement any regulation that would promulgate new
aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that credits funds received from
States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other
public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred
in the provision of agency services.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that provides $10,350,000 for
the contract tower cost sharing program.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds for
conducting and coordinating activities on aeronautical charting
and cartography through the Working Capital Fund.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' that provides funds for
acquisition, establishment, technical support services,
improvement by contract or purchase, and hire of air navigation
and experimental facilities and equipment; engineering and
service testing, construction and furnishing of quarters and
related accommodations at remote localities; and the purchase,
lease, or transfer of aircraft.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' that provides funds from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund and limits the availability of
funds.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' that allows certain funds received
for expenses incurred in the establishment and modernization of
air navigation facilities to be credited to the account.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' that requires the Secretary of
Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment
plan for the Federal Aviation Administration.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Research, engineering, and development'' that provides funds
from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for research,
engineering, and development, including construction of
experimental facilities and acquisition of necessary sites by
lease or grant; and limits the availability of funds.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Research, engineering, and development'' that allows certain
funds received for expenses incurred in research, engineering
and development to be credited to the account.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that provides funds from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund for airport planning and
development; noise compatibility planning and programs;
procurement, installation, and commissioning of runway
incursion prevention devices and systems; grants authorized
under section 41743 of title 49, U.S.C.; and inspection
activities and administration of airport safety programs; and
limits the availability of funds.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that limits funds available for
the planning or execution of programs with obligations in
excess of $3,350,000,000.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that prohibits funds for the
replacement of baggage conveyor systems, reconfiguration of
terminal baggage areas, or other airport improvements that are
necessary to install bulk explosive detection systems.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that establishes a cost share of
95 percent for construction projects for which the project
sponsor received a grant in fiscal year 2011. Language is
included under Federal Aviation Administration, ``Grants-in-aid
for airports'' that provides $105,000,000 for administration.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that specifies $15,000,000 for
the airport cooperative research program, $29,300,000 for the
airport technology research program.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that rescinds contract authority
above the obligation limitation.
Section 110 limits the number of technical workyears at the
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to 600 in
fiscal year 2011.
Section 111 prohibits FAA from requiring airport sponsors
to provide the agency ``without cost'' building construction,
maintenance, utilities and expenses, or space in sponsor-owned
buildings, except in the case of certain specified exceptions.
Section 112 allows reimbursement for fees collected and
credited under 49 U.S.C. 45303.
Section 113 allows reimbursement of funds for providing
technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities to be
credited to the operations account.
Section 114 prohibits funds limited in this Act for the
Airport Improvement Program to be provided to an airport that
refuses a request from the Secretary of Transportation to use
public space at the airport for the purpose of conducting
outreach on air passenger rights.
Section 115 prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium
pay except in those cases where the individual actually worked
on a Sunday.
Section 116 prohibits FAA from using funds to purchase
store gift cards or gift certificates through a government-
issued credit card.
Section 117 allows airports experiencing the required level
of boardings through charter and scheduled air service to be
eligible for funds under 49 U.S.C. 47114(c).
Section 118 requires approval from the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Administration of the Department of
Transportation for retention bonuses for any FAA employee.
Section 119 limits the cost-share required under the
contract tower program to 20 percent.
Section 119A requires the Secretary to block the display of
an owner or operator's aircraft registration number in the
Aircraft Situational Display to Industry program, upon the
request of an owner or operator.
Section 119B prohibits funds to change weight restrictions
or prior permission rules at Teterboro Airport, Teterboro, New
Jersey.
Language is included under the Federal Highway
Administration, ``Limitation on administrative expenses'' that
limits the amount to be paid, together with advances and
reimbursements received, for the administrative expenses of the
agency, including an amount for financial system upgrades
subject to conditions. In addition to this limitation, an
amount is specified that is to be made available to the
Appalachian Regional Commission for administrative expenses.
Language is included under the Federal Highway
Administration, ``Federal-aid highways'' that limits the
obligations for Federal-aid highways and highway safety
construction programs; limits the amount available for the
implementation or execution of programs for transportation
research, which shall not apply to any authority previously
made available for obligation; and allows the Secretary to
charge, collect and spend fees for loan applications and that
such amounts are in addition to administrative expenses and are
not subject to any obligation limitation or limitation on
administrative expenses under section 608 of title 23, U.S.C.,
and which are available until expended.
Language is included under the Federal Highway
Administration, ``Federal-aid highways'' that liquidates
contract authority.
Section 120 distributes obligation authority among federal-
aid highways programs.
Section 121 credits funds received by the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics to the federal-aid highways account.
Section 122 provides requirements for any waiver of the Buy
American Act.
Section 123 prohibits tolling in Texas, with exceptions.
Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, ``Motor Carrier Safety Operations and
Programs'' that provides a limitation on obligations and
liquidation of contract authorization, including specifying
amounts available for research and technology programs and
commercial motor vehicle operator's grants; and prohibits funds
for outreach and education from being transferred.
Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, ``Motor carrier safety grants'' that provides a
limitation on obligations and liquidation of contract
authorization, including specifying amounts available for the
commercial driver's license improvements program, border
enforcement grants program, the performance and registration
information system management program, the commercial vehicle
information systems and networks deployment program, the safety
data improvement program, and the commercial driver's license
information system modernization program; and specifies amount
for new entrant audits.
Section 130 continues a provision subjecting funds
appropriated in this Act to the terms and conditions included
in prior appropriations Acts regarding Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Operations and research'' that limits the
availability of funds and prohibits the planning or
implementation of any rulemaking on labeling passenger car
tires for low rolling resistance.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Operations and research'' that provides a
limitation on obligations, limits the availability of funds,
and provides a liquidation of contract authorization from the
highway trust fund.
Language is included under the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration ``National driver register'' that
provides a limitation on obligations and a liquidation of
contract authorization from the highway trust fund.
Language is included under the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration ``National driver register
modernization'' that limits the availability of funds.
Language is included under the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration ``Highway traffic safety grants'' that
provides a limitation on obligations, limits the availability
of funds, specifies the amounts for certain safety grant
programs and provides a liquidation of contract authorization
from the highway trust fund.
Language is included under the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration that reallocates funds from the seat belt
performance grants program to fund a new distracted driving
grant program and allows a portion of the funding to be used
for the development, production, and use of broadcast and print
media in support of efforts to prevent distracted driving.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' prohibiting
the use of funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling
costs or for office furniture for state, local, or private
buildings.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' that limits
funding for an evaluation for the high visibility enforcement
program.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' limiting the
amount of funds available for technical assistance to states
under section 410.
Section 140 provides funding for travel and related
expenses for state management reviews and highway safety core
competency development training.
Section 141 exempts obligation authority that was made
available in previous public laws for multiple years from
limitations on obligations for the current year.
Section 142 prohibits funding for the National Highway
Safety Advisory Committee.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Safety and operations'' limiting the availability of funds.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Railroad research and development'' limiting the availability
of funds.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program''
authorizing the Secretary to issue direct loans and loan
guarantees under sections 502 through 504 of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program'' that
prohibits new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using
federal funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
Language is included under the Federal Railroad
Administration, ``Operating subsidy grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation'' that allows the Secretary of
Transportation to make quarterly grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation; allows the Secretary to approve
funding only after receiving and reviewing a grant request for
each train route; ensures that each grant request is
accompanied by a detailed financial analysis, revenue
projection, and capital expenditure projection; requires the
Corporation to submit a detailed business plan that includes
targets for ridership, revenues, and capital and operating
expenses as well as semi-annual reports regarding the status of
the business plan; requires the Corporation to follow the
provisions of the direct loan agreement; prohibits funds to
support any route with a discounted fare of more than 50
percent off the normal peak fare, unless the operating loss is
the result of a discount covered by a State; and requires
Amtrak to submit a 2014 budget similar to other Federal
agencies.
Language is included under the Federal Railroad
Administration, ``Capital and Debt Service Grants to the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation'' that allows the
Secretary of Transportation to make grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation for the maintenance and repair
of capital infrastructure and debt service; allows the
Secretary to retain some funds to be used for oversight; bars a
portion of these funds under this section to be used for
operating losses; restricts the use of funds unless they have
been approved by the Secretary or are contained in the
Corporation's business plan; provides funds for high priority
state-of-good-repair intercity infrastructure projects on
existing intercity passenger rail services; and allows the
Secretary to retain some funds to be used by the Northeast
Corridor Commission.
Section 150 retains a provision that ceases the
availability of Amtrak funds if the railroad contracts for
services outside the United States for any service performed by
a full-time or part-time Amtrak employee as of July 1, 2006.
Section 151 retains a provision, which allows FRA to
receive and use cash or spare parts to repair and replace
damaged automated track inspection cars and equipment in
connection with the automated track inspection program.
Section 152 includes a provision which authorizes the
Secretary to allow issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or
repurchase such stock sold to the Department.
Section 153 continues a provision that limits overtime to
$35,000 per employee, allows Amtrak's president to waive this
restriction for specific employees for safety or operational
efficiency reasons, and requires notification to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of granting
such a waiver.
Section 154 includes a provision which transfers
unobligated balances in contract authority that were originally
authorized for Magnetic Levitation to activities authorized
under the Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Hazard Elimination
Program.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Administrative Expenses'' specifying an amount for
administrative expenses and travel; prohibiting a permanent
office of transit security; directing the submission of the
annual report on new starts. Language is included under Federal
Transit Administration, ``Formula and Bus Grants'' that
provides a limitation on obligations from the Highway Trust
Fund, contingent upon reauthorization, and limits the
availability of funds.
Language is included under Liquidation of Contract
Authority which makes funds available for payments of
obligations, contingent upon authorization.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Research and University Research Centers'' that limits the
availability of funds and specifies the amounts for certain
offices and programs.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Capital Investment Grants'' that limits the availability of
funds.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority'' for capital
and preventive maintenance expenditures and requires the
Secretary to determine that WMATA has placed the highest
priority on safety investments and waives a requirement under
the Passenger Rail Infrastructure Improvement and Investment
Act.
Section 160 exempts previously made transit obligations
from limitations on obligations.
Section 161 allows funds appropriated for capital
investment grants and bus and bus facilities not obligated by
September 30, 2015, plus other recoveries to be available for
other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
Section 162 allows for the transfer of prior year
appropriations from older accounts to be merged into new
accounts with similar, current activities.
Section 163 allows prior year funds available for capital
investment grants to be used in this fiscal year for such
projects.
Section 164 requires unobligated funds or recoveries under
section 5309 of title 49 that are available for reallocation
shall be directed to projects eligible to use the funds for the
purposes for which they were originally intended.
Section 165 provides flexibility to fund program management
oversight activities as authorized by section 5316 of title 49,
United States Code.
Section 166 prohibits funds from being used to carry out 49
U.S.C. 5309(m)(6)(B) and (C).
Section 167 prohibits a full funding grant agreement for a
project with a new starts share greater than 60%.
Section 168 directs the Secretary to conduct a formal
adjudication related to charter bus service under part 604 of
title 49 CFR.
Section 169 permits the Secretary to consider significant
private contributions when calculating the non-Federal share of
new starts projects.
Section 169A rescinds unobligated prior year funds from
various transit accounts.
Section 169B prohibits funds for a certain fixed guideway
project in Houston, Texas.
Section 169C allows fuel and utilities for vehicles to be
treated as a capital maintenance expense under section 5307 in
fiscal year 2013, up to $100,000,000.
Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation that authorizes expenditures,
contracts, and commitments as may be necessary.
Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation ``Operations and Maintenance'' that
provides funds derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Language is included under Maritime Administration,
``Maritime Security Program'' that provides funds to preserve a
U.S. flag merchant fleet.
Language is included under Maritime Administration,
``Operations and Training'' that provides dedicated funds for
salaries and benefits of employees of the United States
Merchant Marine Academy, Student Incentive Program payments,
capital improvements at the United States Merchant Marine
Academy, and the State Maritime Schools Schoolship Maintenance
and Repair; directs allotment holders, and limits funds until
the Secretary completes a plan detailing how funding will be
expended at the Academy.
Language is included under Maritime Administration, ``Ship
Disposal'' that limits the availability of funds.
Language is included under Maritime Administration,
``Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account'' that
provides for the transfer to Operations and Training. Section
170 allows the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and
services and make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy
involving government property under the control of MARAD and
rental payments shall be covered into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
Section 170 allows the Maritime Administration to furnish
utilities and services and make repairs to any lease, contract,
or occupancy involving government property under the control of
MARAD.
Section 171 continues a provision regarding MARAD ship
disposal.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Operational expenses'' which specifies
the amount derived from the pipeline safety fund and requires
that $1,500,000 be transferred to the pipeline safety account
to fund pipeline safety information grants to communities.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Hazardous materials safety'' which
limits the availability of a certain amount and allows up to
$800,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) to be
deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting
receipts.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Hazardous materials safety'' that
credits certain funds received for expenses incurred for
training and other activities incurred in performance of
hazardous materials exemptions and approval functions.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' which specifies the
amounts derived from the pipeline safety fund and the oil spill
liability trust fund and limits their period of availability.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' that requires the
agency to fund the one-call state grant program.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Emergency Preparedness Grants'' which
specifies the amount derived from the emergency preparedness
fund, limits the availability of some funds, and prohibits
funds from being obligated by anyone other than the Secretary
or his designee.
Language is included under Office of Inspector General,
``Salaries and expenses'' that provides the Inspector General
with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of
fraud by any person or entity that is subject to regulation by
the Department of Transportation and the authority to
investigate unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of
competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket
agents.
Language is included under the Office of the Inspector
General, ``Salaries and expenses'' providing the IG with
authority to conduct audits and investigations of the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) and to
require MWAA to reimburse the IG to these audits and
investigations.
Language is included under Surface Transportation Board,
``Salaries and expenses'' allowing the collection of $1,250,000
in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface
Transportation Board; and providing that the sum appropriated
from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar
basis as such fees are received.
Section 180 allows the Department of Transportation to use
funds for 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 to 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, and prohibits political
and Presidential personnel assigned on temporary detail outside
the Department of Transportation.
Section 183 prohibits recipients of funds made available in
this Act from releasing personal information, including Social
Security number, medical or disability information, and
photographs from a driver's license or motor vehicle record,
without express consent of the person to whom such information
pertains; and prohibits the withholding of funds provided in
this Act for any grantee if a state is 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 to be used for
expenses incurred for training may be credited to each agency's
respective accounts.
Section 185 prohibits funds in Title I of this Act from
being issued for any grant unless the Secretary of
Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not less than three full business days before
any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full
funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is
announced by the department or its modal administrations.
Section 186 allows funds received from rebates, refunds,
and similar sources to be credited to Department of
Transportation appropriations.
Section 187 allows 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 stipulates that the Committees on
Appropriations solely approve or deny any funds provided or
limited in this Act that are subject to a reprogramming action
that requires notice to be provided to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Section 189 prohibits the Surface Transportation Board from
charging or collecting filing fees for late complaints in an
amount in excess of the authorized amount under section 1914 of
title 28, United States Code.
Section 190 allows funds to modal administrations to be
obligated to the Office of the Secretary for the costs related
to assessments or reimbursable agreements only when the
services provide a direct benefit to the applicable modal
administration.

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Management and Administration'' which designates
funds for ``Administration, Operations and Maintenance'';
allows funds to be used for certain administrative and non-
administrative expenses; allows funds to be used for
advertising and promotional activities; requires the Secretary
to submit a detailed budget justification for each office
within the Department.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Program office salaries and expenses'' which
designates funds for ``Public and Indian Housing,'' ``Community
Planning and Development,'' ``Housing,'' ``Policy Development
and Research,'' ``Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity'' and
``Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control.''
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'' which specifies
funds for certain programs, activities and purposes and limits
the use and availability of certain funds; specifies the
methodology for allocation of renewal funding; directs the
Secretary to provide renewal funding based on validated voucher
system leasing and cost data for the prior year; prohibits
funds to exceed a public housing agency's authorized level of
units under contract, except for those participating in the
Moving to Work demonstration; directs the Secretary to the
extent possible to prorate each public housing agency's (PHA)
allocation; directs the Secretary to notify PHAs of their
annual budget not later than 60 days after enactment of the
Act; allows the Secretary to extend the notification period
with the prior approval of the House and Senate appropriations
committees; specifies the amounts available to the Secretary to
allocate to PHAs that need additional funds and for fees;
specifies the amount for additional rental subsidy due to
unforeseen emergencies and portability; provides funding for
public housing agencies with vouchers that were not in use
during the previous 12 month period in order to be available to
meet a commitment pursuant to section 8(o)(13); provides
funding for incremental vouchers for homeless veterans; and
provides for adjustments in allocations for PHAs that
participate in the Small Area Fair Market Rent demonstration.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'' which provides
funds for tenant protection vouchers; sets certain conditions
for the Secretary to provide such vouchers; provides funds for
residents of multi-family properties that would not otherwise
have been eligible for tenant-protection vouchers; and sets
eligibility requirements for multi-family properties to
participate in the program.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'' which provides
funds for administrative and other expenses of public housing
agencies to administer the section 8 tenant-based rental
assistance program; sets an amount to be available to PHAs that
need additional funds to administer tenant protection
assistance, disaster related vouchers, Veterans Affairs
Supportive Housing vouchers and other special purpose vouchers;
establishes that ``Moving to Work'' (MTW) agencies be funded
pursuant to their MTW agreements; provides funds for family
self-sufficiency coordinators; and provides funds for section
811 mainstream vouchers.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'' which provides
funds for Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers,
sets requirements for the administration of VASH vouchers,
specifies that funds shall remain available for homeless
veterans upon turn-over of such vouchers, and requires the
Secretary separately track such vouchers.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Housing Certificate Fund'' which rescinds prior
year funds; and allows the Secretary to use recaptures to fund
project-based contracts and contract administrators.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Public Housing Capital Fund'' which limits the
availability of funds; limits the delegation of certain waiver
authorities and prohibits funds from being used for certain
activities; specifies the total amount available for certain
activities; specifies an amount for ongoing Public Housing
Financial and Physical Assessment activities of the Real Estate
Assessment Center; specifies an amount for emergency capital
needs; specifies the amount for support services, service
coordinators and congregate services; specifies the amount to
support the costs of administrative and judicial receiverships;
and makes funds available for bonuses for high performing PHAs.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Public Housing Operating Fund'' which sets the
basis for the allocation of funds and prohibits the use of
funds under certain conditions, and provides the Secretary with
the authority to take into account changes in requirements on
PHAs in the administration of the section 8 voucher program.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Native American Housing Block Grants'' which
limits the availability of funds; specifies the formula for
allocation; specifies the amounts for technical assistance and
capacity building to support the inspection of Indian housing
units, administrative expenses, to subsidize the total
principal amount of any notes, and the cost of guaranteed
notes, which are defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program
Account'' which limits the availability of funds; specifies how
to define the costs of modifying loans; specifies the amount
and availability of funds to subsidize total loan principal;
and provides a dedicated amount for administrative expenses.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS''
which limits availability of funds and sets forth certain
requirements for the allocation and renewal of funds and
contracts.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Community Development Fund'' which limits the
use and availability of certain funds; specifies the allocation
of certain funds; specifies the amount made available for
grants to federally-recognized Indian tribes, emergencies,
Economic Development Initiatives with certain restrictions, and
Neighborhood Initiatives with certain restrictions and the
Sustainable Communities Initiative.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Community Development Loan Guarantees Program
Account'' which limits the availability of funds; specifies how
to define the costs of modifying loans; and specifies the
amount and availability of funds to subsidize total loan
principal.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Home Investment Partnerships Program'' which
limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of
certain funds for certain purposes; and directs HUD to notify
formula grantees no later than 60 days after enactment of the
Act.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity
Program'' which limits the availability of funds; specifies the
allocation of certain funds for certain purposes; and directs
HUD to issue a NOFA not later than 60 days after enactment of
the Act.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Homeless Assistance Grants'' which limits the
availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain
funds for certain purposes; specifies matching requirements;
directs the Secretary to renew contracts under certain
conditions; requires grantees to integrate homeless programs
with other social service providers.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Project-Based Rental Assistance'' which limits
the availability of funds and specifies the allocation of
certain funds for certain purposes; and allows the Secretary to
recapture residual receipts from certain properties.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Housing for the Elderly'' which limits the
availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain
funds; designates certain funds to be used only for certain
grants; allows the Secretary to waive certain provisions
governing contract terms; and allows the Secretary to recapture
residual receipts from certain properties.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Housing for Persons with Disabilities'' which
limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of
certain funds; and allows funds to be used to renew certain
contracts.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Housing Counseling Assistance'' which limits the
availability of funds and specifies amounts to be used for
administrative contract services.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Payment to Manufactured Housing Fees Trust
Fund'' which limits the availability of funds and permits fees
to be assessed, modified, and collected, and permits temporary
borrowing authority from the General Fund of the Treasury.
Language is included under the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, ``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program
Account'' which sets a loan principal limitation; limits the
obligations to make direct loans; specifies funds for specific
purposes; allows for the transfer of certain funds; allows for
additional contract expenses as guaranteed loan commitments
exceed certain levels.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``General and Special Risk Program Account'' which
sets a loan principal limitation; limits the obligations to
make direct loans; specifies funds for specific purposes; and
allows for the transfer of funds.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Government National Mortgage Association'' which
limits new commitments to issue guarantees, provides funds for
salaries and expenses, and allows for additional salaries and
expenses as guaranteed loan commitments exceed certain levels.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Policy Development and Research'' which limits
the availability of funds and specifies authorized uses.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity'' which
limits the availability of funds; authorizes the Secretary to
assess and collect fees; places restrictions on the use of
funds for lobbying activities; and provides funds for programs
that support the assistance of persons with limited English
proficiency.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy
Homes'' which limits the availability of funds; specifies the
amount of funds for specific purposes; specifies the treatment
of certain grants, specifies a matching requirement for grants,
requires certification of grantee capacity, and allows for a
reallocation of grant funds based on demand for such grants.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Management and Administration: Working Capital
Fund'' which limits the availability and purpose of funds,
including funds transferred, provides funds for the development
of information technology systems, and restricts the amount
provided until the Secretary submits an expenditure plan for
such systems.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Office of Inspector General'' which specifies
the use of funds and directs that the IG shall have independent
authority over all personnel issues within the office.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Transformation Initiative'' (TI) which provides
funds for research, evaluation, program metrics and
demonstrations, and requires a match from participants in such
agreements.
Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment
factors.
Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to
investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair
Housing Act.
Section 203 corrects an anomaly in the HOPWA formula that
results in the loss of funds for certain states.
Section 204 requires funds appropriated to be distributed
on a competitive basis in accordance with the Department of
Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989.
Section 205 establishes the availability of funds subject
to the Government Corporation Control Act and the Housing Act
of 1950.
Section 206 sets requirements on the allocation of funds in
excess of the budget estimates.
Section 207 sets requirements regarding the expenditure of
funds for corporations and agencies subject to the Government
Corporation Control Act.
Section 208 requires the Secretary to provide quarterly
reports on uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds in each
departmental program and activity.
Section 209 requires that the Administration's budget and
the Department's budget justifications for fiscal year 2014
shall be submitted in the identical account and sub-account
structure provided in this Act.
Section 210 exempts PHA Boards in Alaska, Iowa, and
Mississippi and the County of Los Angeles from public housing
resident representation requirement.
Section 211 authorizes HUD to transfer debt and use
agreements from an obsolete project to a viable project,
provided that no additional costs are incurred, and other
conditions are met.
Section 212 prohibits the IG from changing the basis on
which the audit of GNMA is conducted.
Section 213 sets requirements for eligibility for Section 8
voucher assistance, and includes consideration for persons with
disabilities.
Section 214 requires the distribution of Native American
housing block grant funds to the same Native Alaskan recipients
as 2005.
Section 215 authorizes the Secretary to insure mortgages
under Section 255 of the National Housing Act.
Section 216 instructs HUD on managing and disposing of any
multifamily property that is owned by HUD.
Section 217 requires the Secretary to report quarterly on
HUD's use of all sole source contracts.
Section 218 authorizes the Secretary to waive certain
requirements on adjusted income for certain assisted living
projects for counties in Michigan.
Section 219 allows the recipient of a section 202 grant to
establish a single-asset nonprofit entity to own the project
and may lend the grant funds to such entity.
Section 220 allows amounts provided under the Section 108
loan guarantee program may be used to guarantee notes or other
obligations issued by any State on behalf of non-entitlement
communities in the State, and that regulations shall be
promulgated within 60 days of enactment.
Section 221 instructs HUD that PHAs that own and operate
400 units or fewer of public housing are exempt from asset
management requirements.
Section 222 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 QHWRA.
Section 223 requires that no employee of the Department
shall be designated as an allotment holder unless the CFO
determines that such allotment holder has received training.
Section 224 provides that funding for indemnities is
limited to non-programmatic litigation and is restricted to the
payment of attorney fees only.
Section 225 sets requirements regarding Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA) announcements and publication.
Section 226 authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 5
percent of funds appropriated under the title ``Personnel
Compensation and Benefits.''
Section 227 allows the Disaster Housing Assistance Programs
to be considered a program of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development for the purpose of income verifications and
matching.
Section 228 sets limitations on funds used for PHA salary
levels.
Section 229 allows critical access hospitals to be insured
under section 242 of the National Housing Act.
Section 230 allows the Secretary to increase loan guarantee
fees under the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program.
Section 231 allows evictions in HOME-funded properties when
necessary to ensure safety and that allows recaptured HOME
technical assistance funding to be redistributed in the formula
program.
Section 232 extends the availability of Hope VI funds
appropriated in prior years.
Section 233 requires annual, rather than quarterly,
reporting by the Secretary regarding duplication of benefits in
Community Development Fund disaster funding.
Section 234 repeals paragraphs under the heading ``Flexible
Subsidy Fund.''

TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIES

Language is included for the Access Board, ``Salaries and
Expenses'' that allows for the credit to the appropriation of
funds received for publications and training expenses.
Language is included for the Federal Maritime Commission,
``Salaries and Expenses'' that provides funds for services
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of passenger motor
vehicles, uniforms and allowances, and official reception and
representation expenses.
Language is included for the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation, Office of Inspector General, ``Salaries and
Expenses'' to provide funds for an independent, objective unit
responsible for detecting and preventing fraud, waste, abuse,
and violations of law and promoting economy, efficiency and
effectiveness at Amtrak.
Language is included for the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation, Office of Inspector General, ``Salaries and
expenses'' which requires the IG to submit its budget request
concurrently with the President's budget and in a similar
format.
Language is included under National Transportation Safety
Board, ``Salaries and expenses'' that provides funds for hire
of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft, services authorized
by 5 U.S.C. 3109, uniforms or allowances therefore, and for
official reception and representation expenses.
Language is included under National Transportation Safety
Board, ``Salaries and expenses'' that allows funds provided in
this Act to be used to pay for costs associated with a 2001
capital lease.
Language is included in the Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation (NRC), ``Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation'' which limits the availability of funds; specifies
theallocation of funds to certain activities; and specifies the
terms and conditions surrounding NRC activities.
Language is included for the United States Interagency
Council on Homelessness, ``Operating Expenses'' that provides
funds for salaries, travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles,
rental of conference rooms, and the employment of experts and
consultants.

TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT

Section 401 requires pay raises to be funded 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 consulting service expenditures of
public record in procurement contracts.
Section 405 specifies reprogramming procedures by
subjecting the establishment of new offices and reorganizations
to the reprogramming process.
Section 406 provides that fifty percent of unobligated
balances may remain available for certain purposes.
Section 407 requires a report from all agencies and
departments funded under this Act to the Committees on
Appropriations on all sole source contracts by no later than
July 30, 2010.
Section 408 prohibits Federal training not directly related
to the performance of official duties.
Section 409 prohibits funds from being used for any project
that seeks to use the power of eminent domain unless eminent
domain is employed only for a public use.
Section 410 prohibits the transfer of funds made available
in this Act to any instrumentality of the United States
Government except as authorized by this Act or any other
appropriations Act.
Section 411 prohibits funds in this Act from being used to
permanently replace an employee intent on returning to his past
occupation after the completion of military service.
Section 412 prohibits funds in this Act from being used
unless the expenditure is in compliance with the Buy American
Act.
Section 413 prohibits funds from being appropriated or made
available to any person or entity that has been found to
violate the Buy American Act.
Section 414 prohibits funds for first-class airline
accommodations 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
from going to the group ACORN or any of its affiliates,
subsidiaries, or allied organizations.
Section 416 prohibits convicted felons from receiving
certain Federal funds.
Section 417 prohibits funding to corporations with any
unpaid Federal tax liability.
Section 418 establishes a spending reduction account.

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

The Committee, in a number of instances, has found it
necessary to recommend funding for ongoing activities and
programs for which authorizations have not been enacted to
date. These include some of the programs under the Department
of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
and related agencies. Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(B) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying
bill which are not authorized by law for the period concerned:

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND EXPIRING AUTHORIZATIONS
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations in
Program Last year of Authorization last year of Appropriations
authorization level authorization in this bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary of Transportation:
Research and Development\1\............ ............. ............... .................. $13,670
Federal Highway Administration:
Federal-aid Highways\2\................ 2012 $39,446,216 $39,143,583 39,143,583
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration:
Motor Carrier Safety Operations and 2012 244,144 247,724 244,144
Programs\2\...........................
Motor Carrier Safety Grants\2\......... 2012 307,000 307,000 307,000
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration:
Operations and Research--General Fund.. 2009 157,400 127,000 152,000
Operations and Research--Highway Trust 2012 108,244 105,500 118,244
Fund\2\...............................
National Driver Register--Highway Trust 2012 4,116 4,000 4,166
Fund\2\...............................
Highway Traffic Safety Grants\2\....... 2012 550,328 550,328 501,828
Federal Transit Administration:
Administrative Expenses\2\............. 2012 98,713 98,713 100,000
Research and University Research 2012 44,000 44,000 44,000
Centers\2\............................
Capital Investment Grants\2\........... 2012 1,955,000 1,950,000 1,816,993
Formula & Bus Grants\2\................ 2012 8,360,565 8,360,565 8,360,565
Maritime Administration:
Operations and Training................ 2012 164,158 156,258 145,753
Ship Disposal.......................... 2012 18,500 5,500 4,000
Title XI............................... 2012 14,260 3,740 3,750
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration:
Hazardous Materials Safety............. 2009 32,000 32,000 42,546
Emergency Preparedness Grants.......... 2009 30,000 28,318 28,318
Surface Transportation Board:
Surface Transportation Board........... 1998 12,000 13,853 31,250

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Rental Assistance:
Section 8 Contract Renewals and 1994 8,446,173 5,458,106 8,440,400
Administrative Expenses...............
Contract Administrators................ ............. ............... .................. 260,000
Public Housing Capital Fund............ 2003 3,000,000 2,712,555 1,985,000
Public Housing Operating Fund.......... 2003 2,900,000 3,576,600 4,524,000
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund......... 2007 (\3\) 6,000 6,000
Housing Opportunity for Persons with AIDS.. 1994 156,300 156,000 330,000
Community Development Fund:
Community Development Block Grant.......... 1994 4,168,000 4,380,000 3,404,000
Home Investment Partnership................ 1994 2,173,612 1,275,000 1,200,000
Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program 2000 ............... 53,500 60,000
Homeless Assistance........................ 2011 (\3\) 1,905,000 2,000,000
Housing for the Elderly.................... 2003 ............... 783,286 425,000
Housing for Persons with Disabilities...... 2003 ............... 250,515 165,000
FHA General and Special Risk Program
Account:
Limitations on Guaranteed Loans........ 1995 ............... (20,885,072) (25,000,000)
Limitation on Direct Loans............. 1995 ............... (220,000) (20,000)
Credit Subsidy......................... 1995 ............... 188,395 ...............
Administrative Expenses................ 1995 ............... 197,470 215,000
GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan
Guarantee Program Account:
Limitations on Guaranteed Loans........ 1996 (110,000,000) (110,000,000) (500,000,000)
Administrative Expenses................ 1996 ............... 9,101 20,500
Policy Development and Research............ 1994 36,470 35,000 52,000
Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing 1994 26,000 20,481 68,000
Program...................................
Lead Hazard Reduction Program.............. 1994 276,000 185,000 120,000
Salaries and Expenses...................... 1994 1,029,496 916,963 1,326,614
Transformation Initiative.................. ............. ............... .................. 50,000

TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIES
National Transportation Safety Board....... 2008 96,625 91,000 102,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Research and Development was previously appropriated in the Research and Innovative Technology Administration
and has been appropriated through the Office of the Secretary in this bill.
\2\For surface transportation programs, the authorized level in this table is actually the annualized level of
authorization provided in P.L. 112-102, which goes through June 30, 2012.
\3\Such sums as necessary.

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares
the levels of new budget authority and outlays provided in the
bill with the appropriate allocations made under section 302(b)
of the Budget Act:

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) Allocation This Bill
-----------------------------------------------
Budget Budget
Authority Outlays Authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to
its subcommittees: Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Discretionary............................................... 51,606 115,161 51,606 \1\114,864
Mandatory................................................... 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section
308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
following table contains five-year outlay projections
associated with the budget authority provided in the
accompanying bill, as provided to the Committee by the
Congressional Budget Office:

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) Allocation This Bill
-----------------------------------------------
Budget Budget
Authority Outlays Authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to
its subcommittees: Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2013........................................................ n.a. n.a. n.a. \1\37,955
2014........................................................ n.a. n.a. n.a. 32,021
2015........................................................ n.a. n.a. n.a. 13,838
2016........................................................ n.a. n.a. n.a. 5,973
2017 and future years....................................... n.a. n.a. n.a. 6,965
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
n.a.: not applicable.

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section
308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Congressional Budget Office has provided the following
estimates of new budget authority and outlays provided by the
accompanying bill for financial assistance to State and local
governments:

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Pursuant to section 6(e) of the rules of the Committee on
Appropriations, the following statement is submitted regarding
the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to
enact the accompanying bill:
The principal constitutional authority for this legislation
is clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution of
the United States (the appropriation power), which states: ``No
Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law . . .'' In addition, clause 1 of
section 8 of article I of the Constitution (the spending power)
provides: ``The Congress shall have the Power . . . to pay the
Debts and provide for the common Defense and general welfare of
the United States . . .'' Together, these specific
constitutional provisions establish the congressional power of
the purse, granting Congress the authority to appropriate
funds, to determine their purpose, amount, and period of
availability and to set forth terms and conditions governing
their use.

Comparative Statement of New Budget (Obligational) Authority

The following table provides a detailed summary, for each
department and agency, comparing the amounts recommended in the
bill with fiscal year 2012 enacted amounts and budget estimates
presented for fiscal year 2013:

MINORITY VIEWS

Despite an inadequate allocation and a broken authorization
process, Chairman Latham and Chairman Rogers have made a
respectable effort to draft a bill that acknowledges the
transportation and housing needs facing our nation.
The agreement obtained in last year's Budget Control Act
was hard fought but fair. Unfortunately, the House Republicans
have walked away from the bipartisan, bicameral discretionary
spending levels that were established for fiscal year 2013. The
Committee's overall discretionary allocation for fiscal year
2013 falls $19 billion below the $1.047 trillion level that was
agreed to by a majority of the House Republican conference less
than a year ago. By reneging on the agreement, House
Republicans put themselves at odds with House Democrats, the
White House, Senate Democrats, and Senate Republicans. This has
created uncertainty about the discretionary allocation, and
about whether the House majority will threaten to shut down the
government. This uncertainty will slow down the appropriations
process and the austere House allocation, if it stands, will
stall economic growth and impede job creation.
With a looming June 30th expiration date on the surface
transportation reauthorization bill, the Congress will likely
be forced to pass the tenth short-term extension or shut down
the highway and transit programs during the height of
construction season. The stalled authorization process has
compelled the Chairman to freeze funding for roads, bridges and
public transportation systems at last year's levels at a time
when unemployment in the construction sector stands at 14.2
percent and our infrastructure is in desperate need of repair
and expansion.
On the housing side of this bill, the situation isn't much
better. Many programs in this area have been unauthorized for
more than a decade. Of note, the authorizing committee has
considered reform proposals to the Section Eight program since
the 108th Congress. This bill assumes savings contained in the
most current version of that proposal. We urge the authorizing
committee to report a bipartisan reform bill this Session. If
the authorizing committee fails to act, many programs contained
in this bill will be short funded. We will continue to monitor
the progress of this legislation and will work with the
Chairman to develop alternatives if this legislation fails to
materialize.
The funding levels in this bill keep some key programs
moving ahead but miss many opportunities to boost the economy
by investing in our deteriorating infrastructure. DOT's most
recent Conditions and Performance Report quantified the annual
investment gap to maintain our current system of highways and
bridges in a state of good repair at $27 billion and an annual
gap of $96 billion to expand the system to meet the needs of a
population that grows 10 percent each decade. The state of
transit isn't much better, where the estimated state of good
repair backlog is nearly $78 billion.
As our metropolitan areas continue to grow, we must build
public transportation alternatives that allow people to get
from home to work seamlessly and efficiently. While the bill
provides adequate funding to advance major transit projects
currently under construction, it effectively shuts downs the
planning and development pipeline for new subway, light rail
and fixed guideway transit systems. We will work to improve the
funding levels for the Federal Transit Administration's capital
investment grant program as the bill moves through the process.
The funding level for Project-Based Rental Assistance
(PBRA) is a clear example of the consequences of the lower
spending cap. The Administration requested $8.7 billion to
renew PBRA contracts. Fully funding these contracts would
require an additional $1.2 billion. The Administration's
proposal would fund one third of the contracts for a full year
and two thirds for less than a year. The bill endorses this
shortsighted approach; we do not.
Partial year contracts for PBRA merely shift costs from one
fiscal year to the next--a larger amount is due next year. When
Congress adopted this policy in the past, it resulted in a $2
billion hole; funds included in the Recovery Act made this
account whole. Partial year contracts create uncertainty for
the businesses that own these properties and their employees.
Uncertainty commands a high cost in the market. It makes little
sense for Congress to endorse a policy that increases costs and
threatens our nation's economic recovery. We look forward to
working with the Chairman to correct this error as we move
forward.
We are also disappointed that the bill provides zero
funding for the Sustainable Communities Initiative. This
program provides resources to perform regional planning
activities that are not eligible under other existing HUD
programs such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). The
first two years of this program have demonstrated its
versatility. Communities that overlap local and state
governmental boundaries have partnered and utilized the
flexibility of the Sustainable Communities planning grants to
determine what the right mix of housing, transportation and
infrastructure investments are within their region. This
approach fosters job growth and meets the demands of a growing
population.
The Chairman should be commended for some noteworthy bright
spots in a number of transportation and housing programs.
First, the bill makes important investments in the operating,
capital and research activities of the Federal Aviation
Administration. Our air traffic control system is operating
with equipment and facilities that are, in many instances, more
than forty years old. The bill provides adequate resources to
advance key programs within the FAA's NextGen program to ensure
that the United States remains a global leader in aviation. In
addition, the bill includes critical funding to expand the
research on engines, airframes and fuels to improve the
efficiency of aircraft.
We strongly support the funding levels in the bill for
Amtrak. The Chairman has established an innovative new $500
million grant program to make state of good repair investments
on rail lines that serve both intercity and commuter rail
passengers. These funds will help put construction workers on
the job, repair aging bridge and tunnel infrastructure, and
ultimately improve the service and reliability for those
Americans that rely on rail travel.
The bill fully funds the next round of the successful
Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program at $75 million and
moves America forward in our goal of ending veterans'
homelessness. The $3.3 billion for Community Development Block
Grants and $1.2 billion for the HOME program will provide
needed funds to rebuild and strengthen our communities. Robust
allocations for the Housing for the Elderly and Disabled
programs will provide needed new units.
Finally, we are pleased that the Committee adopted an
amendment offered by Mr. Price which would reallocate $83.5
million in unspent magnetic levitation deployment funds to
eliminate hazards at railway-highway grade crossings on high
speed rail corridors. Last year, there were 236 crashes at
railway-highway grade crossings which resulted in more than 260
fatalities. These funds will help improve safety at grade
crossings and increase rail speeds on high speed rail
corridors.
We thank Chairman Latham for his work on this bill. The
Chairman has encouraged an open and collaborative process to
include views from all members of the subcommittee and we
commend him for that. We look forward to perfecting this bill
as the process moves forward.

Norman D. Dicks.
John W. Olver.