68–381 PDF 

Calendar No. 177 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 112–83 

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

2012 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2011.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. MURRAY, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1596] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1596) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and 

Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. 

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2012 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $57,550,000,000 

Amount of 2011 appropriations ............................... 55,368,096,000 

Amount of 2012 budget estimate ............................ 76,350,390,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2011 appropriations .......................................... ∂2,181,904,000 

2012 budget estimate ........................................ ¥18,800,390,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Program, Project, and Activity ............................................................................... 3 

Reprogramming Guidelines .................................................................................... 3 

Congressional Budget Justifications ...................................................................... 4 

Title I: Department of Transportation: 

Office of the Secretary ...................................................................................... 6 

Federal Aviation Administration .................................................................... 24 

Federal Highway Administration .................................................................... 40 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ............................................... 50 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration .......................................... 58 

Federal Railroad Administration .................................................................... 67 

Federal Transit Administration ...................................................................... 71 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ....................................... 80 

Maritime Administration ................................................................................. 81 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ........................... 81 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration ................................... 87 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics ............................................................... 90 

Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 92 

Surface Transportation Board ......................................................................... 94 

General Provisions—Department of Transportation ..................................... 94 

Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

Executive Direction .......................................................................................... 97 

Administration, Operations, and Management .............................................. 97 

Program Office Salaries and Expenses ........................................................... 101 

Public and Indian Housing .............................................................................. 109 

Community Planning and Development ......................................................... 120 

Housing Programs ............................................................................................ 128 

Federal Housing Administration ..................................................................... 133 

Government National Mortgage Association .................................................. 136 

Policy Development and Research .................................................................. 137 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ............................................................. 138 

Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control ...................................... 140 

Working Capital Fund ..................................................................................... 140 

Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 142 

Transformation Initiative ................................................................................ 142 

General Provisions ........................................................................................... 144 

Title III: Independent Agencies: 

Access Board ..................................................................................................... 147 

Federal Maritime Commission ........................................................................ 147 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Office of Inspector General ..................................................................................................................... 148 

National Transportation Safety Board ........................................................... 149 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ....................................................... 150 

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ................................... 152 

Title IV: General Provisions—This Act .................................................................. 153 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate .......................................................................................................................... 156 

Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 157 

Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 158 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 169 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 170 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

(3) 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY 

During fiscal year 2012, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget 

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), as 

amended, with respect to appropriations contained in the accompanying bill, the terms ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ [PPA] shall 

mean any item for which a dollar amount is contained in appropriations acts (including joint resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports 

and joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. 

This definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget 

(obligational) authority is provided, as well as to discretionary 

grants and discretionary grant allocations made through either bill 

or report language. In addition, the percentage reductions made 

pursuant to a sequestration order to funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, shall be applied equally to each budget item that is listed under said account 

in the budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations acts and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES 

The Committee includes a provision (sec. 405) establishing the 

authority by which funding available to the agencies funded by this 

act may be reprogrammed for other purposes. The provision specifically requires the advanced approval of the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations of any proposal to reprogram funds 

that: 

—creates a new program; 

—eliminates a program, project, or activity [PPA]; 

—increases funds or personnel for any PPA for which funds have 

been denied or restricted by the Congress; 

—proposes to redirect funds that were directed in such reports 

for a specific activity to a different purpose; —augments an existing PPA in excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; —reduces an existing PPA by $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or 

—creates, reorganizes, or restructures offices different from the 

congressional budget justifications or the table at the end of 

the Committee report, whichever is more detailed. 

The Committee retains the requirement that each agency submit 

an operating plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than 60 days after enactment of this act to establish the baseline for application of reprogramming and transfer 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

4 

authorities provided in this act. Specifically, each agency should 

provide a table for each appropriation with columns displaying the 

budget request; adjustments made by Congress; adjustments for rescissions, if appropriate; and the fiscal year enacted level. The table 

shall delineate the appropriation both by object class and by PPA. 

The report must also identify items of special congressional interest. 

The Committee expects the agencies and bureaus to submit reprogramming requests in a timely manner and to provide a thorough explanation of the proposed reallocations, including a detailed 

justification of increases and reductions and the specific impact the 

proposed changes will have on the budget request for the following 

fiscal year. Except in emergency situations, reprogramming requests should be submitted no later than June 30. 

The Committee expects each agency to manage its programs and 

activities within the amounts appropriated by Congress. The Committee reminds agencies that reprogramming requests should be 

submitted only in the case of an unforeseeable emergency or a situation that could not have been anticipated when formulating the 

budget request for the current fiscal year. Further, the Committee 

notes that when a Department or agency submits a reprogramming 

or transfer request to the Committees on Appropriations and does 

not receive identical responses from the House and Senate, it is the 

responsibility of the Department to reconcile the House and Senate 

differences before proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, 

to consider the request to reprogram funds unapproved. 

The Committee would also like to clarify that this section applies 

to Working Capital Funds, and that no funds may be obligated 

from such funds to augment programs, projects or activities for 

which appropriations have been specifically rejected by the Congress, or to increase funds or personnel for any PPA above the 

amounts appropriated by this act. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS 

Budget justifications are the primary tool used by the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations to evaluate the resource requirements and fiscal needs of agencies. The Committee is aware 

that the format and presentation of budget materials is largely left 

to the agency within presentation objectives set forth by OMB. In 

fact, OMB Circular A–11, part 6 specifically states that the ‘‘agency 

should consult with your congressional committees beforehand to 

ensure their awareness of your plans to modify the format of agency budget documents.’’ The Committee expects that all agencies 

funded under this act will heed this directive. The Committee expects all of the budget justifications to provide the data needed to 

make appropriate and meaningful funding decisions. 

While the Committee values the inclusion of performance data 

and presentations, it is important to ensure that vital budget information that the Committee needs is not lost. Therefore, the Committee directs that justifications submitted with the fiscal year 

2013 budget request by agencies funded under this act contain the 

customary level of detailed data and explanatory statements to 

support the appropriations requests at the level of detail contained 

in the funding table included at the end of the report. Among other 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

5 

items, agencies shall provide a detailed discussion of proposed new 

initiatives, proposed changes in the agency’s financial plan from 

prior year enactment, and detailed data on all programs and comprehensive information on any office or agency restructurings. At 

a minimum, each agency must also provide adequate justification 

for funding and staffing changes for each individual office and materials that compare programs, projects, and activities that are proposed for fiscal year 2013 to the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

The Committee is aware that the analytical materials required 

for review by the Committee are unique to each agency in this act. 

Therefore, the Committee expects that the each agency will coordinate with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in 

advance on its planned presentation for its budget justification materials in support of the fiscal year 2013 budget request. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

(6) 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Extension of Transportation Programs and the Solvency of the 

Highway Trust Fund.—For the third year in a row, the Committee 

notes that it is in the position of recommending funding levels for 

the highway, transit, and highway and motor carrier safety programs without any certainty that the necessary contract authority 

will be available for the whole of fiscal year 2012. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU] expired at the end of fiscal 

year 2009, and although the Senate and House authorizing committees have each developed legislation to reauthorize the surface 

transportation programs under their jurisdiction, there is still no 

guarantee that their work will be complete before the end of fiscal 

year 2012. The use of short-term extensions has only served to exacerbate the insecurity felt by State and local governments that 

rely on Federal transportation programs for investment in their 

communities. 

In the meantime, the Committee again must fulfill its responsibility to recommend appropriate funding levels for offices and programs at the Department of Transportation. In order to put forward realistic funding recommendations, the Committee is assuming that the transportation programs will continue to be extended 

through fiscal year 2012 at current funding levels. This assumption 

is especially relevant for those programs that rely on contract authority provided in the authorization acts, including the Federalaid highway program, the formula and bus transit programs, the 

programs of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and 

most funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of October 15, 

1966 (Public Law 89–670) provides for establishment of the Office 

of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The Office of the Secretary is comprised of the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary immediate and support offices; the Office of the General Counsel; the 

Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, including the offices of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs and the Assistant Secretary for Transportation for 

Policy; three Assistant Secretarial offices for Budget and Programs, 

Governmental Affairs, and Administration; and the Offices of Public Affairs, the Executive Secretariat, Small and Disadvantaged 

Business Utilization, Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response, and Chief Information Officer. The Office of the Secretary 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

7 

also includes the Department’s Office of Civil Rights and the Department’s Working Capital Fund. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $102,481,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 118,842,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 102,202,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation finances the costs of policy development and 

central supervisory and coordinating functions necessary for the 

overall planning and direction of the Department. It covers the immediate secretarial offices as well as those of the assistant secretaries, and the general counsel. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $102,202,000 for salaries 

and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and representation expenses. The recommendation is $16,640,000 less than the budget request and 

$279,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The accompanying bill stipulates that none of the funding provided may be 

used for the position of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. 

The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 

5 percent of the funds from any Office of the Secretary to another. 

The Committee recommendation continues language that permits 

up to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the Office of the Secretary 

for salaries and expenses. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and the 

budget estimate: 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2011 enacted 2012 request 

Immediate Office of the Secretary ...................................................... $2,626,000 $2,623,000 $2,618,000 

Office of the Deputy Secretary ............................................................ 984,000 988,000 981,000 

Office of the General Counsel ............................................................. 20,318,000 19,615,000 19,515,000 

Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy ................. 11,078,000 12,831,000 11,004,000 

Office of the Assistance Secretary for Budget and Programs ............ 10,538,000 10,949,000 10,538,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Government Affairs .................. 2,499,000 2,630,000 2,544,000 

Office of the Assistance Secretary for Administration ........................ 25,469,000 27,697,000 25,469,000 

Office of Public Affairs ........................................................................ 2,051,000 2,137,000 2,046,000 

Executive Secretariat ........................................................................... 1,655,000 1,682,000 1,649,000 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ................... 1,496,000 1,520,000 1,492,000 

Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response ................. 10,579,000 10,797,000 10,578,000 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................... 13,189,000 17,750,000 13,768,000 

Acquisition workforce development ..................................................... .......................... 7,623,000 ..........................

Total, Salaries and Expenses ................................................. 102,482,000 118,842,000 102,202,000 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Secretary of Transportation provides leadership and has the 

primary responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and 

control of the Department. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

8 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,618,000 for fiscal year 2012 for 

the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation is 

$5,000 less than the budget request and $8,000 less than the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level. 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility of assisting 

the Secretary in the overall planning and direction of the Department. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $981,000 for the Immediate Office 

of the Deputy Secretary, which is $7,000 less than the budget request and $3,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services to the 

Office of the Secretary, including the conduct of aviation regulatory 

proceedings and aviation consumer activities, and coordinates and 

reviews the legal work in the chief counsels’ offices of the operating 

administrations. The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of 

the Department of Transportation and the final authority within 

the Department on all legal questions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $19,515,000 for expenses of the Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2012. The recommended 

funding level is $100,000 less than the budget request and 

$803,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. This level retains the $2,500,000 for the Office of the General Counsel to continue its enhanced efforts to protect the rights of airline passengers. The recommended level does not include the $59,000 requested by the administration to increase the size of the office by 

one position. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Under Secretary for Policy is the chief policy officer of the 

Department and is responsible to the Secretary for the analysis, development, and review of policies and plans for domestic and international transportation matters. The Office administers the economic regulatory functions regarding the airline industry and is responsible for international aviation programs, the essential air 

service program, airline fitness licensing, acquisitions, international route awards, computerized reservation systems, and special investigations, such as airline delays. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

9 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $11,004,000 for the Office of the 

Under Secretary for Policy. The recommended funding level is 

$1,827,000 less than the budget request and $74,000 less than the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The recommended level does not include funding requested by the administration for two additional 

positions in the office or for staff assigned to U.S. Embassies. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs serves as the 

Chief Financial Officer for the Department and provides leadership 

on all financial management matters. The primary responsibilities 

of this office include ensuring the development and justification of 

the Department’s annual budget submissions for consideration by 

the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress. The office 

is also responsible for the proper execution and accountability of 

these resources. In addition, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer for the Office of the Secretary is located within the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,538,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The recommended level 

is $411,000 less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level. The recommendation does not include additional funding requested by the administration for increasing the 

office by two positions. 

Acquisition Workforce Development.—The Committee recommendation does not include $7,623,000 requested by the Department to increase the Department’s acquisition workforce capacity 

and capabilities. Under the Department’s proposal, OST would 

transfer these funds to other accounts throughout the Department 

for the purpose of developing its acquisition workforce. The Committee agrees with the importance of investing in the Department’s 

acquisition workforce, but believes that those investments should 

be made directly in the operating administrations when more resources are available. 

In addition, the Committee directs the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to analyze the Department’s acquisition workforce and report its findings to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations no later than December 31, 2012. The GAO’s 

evaluation should include an assessment of the acquisition workforce of each agency within the Department of Transportation, including the Office of the Secretary; an evaluation of OST’s current 

role in supporting and overseeing the acquisition workforce 

throughout the Department; and a presentation of the best practices that Federal departments have used to maintain their acquisition workforces, including a discussion of how those best practices 

could be used at the Department of Transportation. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

10 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises the 

Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental activities and 

on all departmental legislative initiatives and other relationships 

with Members of Congress. The Assistant Secretary promotes effective communication with other Federal agencies and regional Department officials, and with State and local governments and national organizations for development of departmental programs; 

and ensures that consumer preferences, awareness, and needs are 

brought into the decisionmaking process. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $2,544,000 for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The recommended level is $86,000 less than the budget request and 

$45,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. This level 

does not include additional funds requested by the administration 

to increase the size of the office by one position. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for establishing policies and procedures, setting guidelines, working with 

the operating administrations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department in human resource management, security 

and administrative management, real and personal property management, and acquisition and grants management. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,469,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding 

level is $2,228,000 less than the budget request and equal to the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Director of Public Affairs is the principal advisor to the Secretary and other senior departmental officials on public affairs 

questions. The office is responsible for managing the Secretary’s 

presence in the media, writing speeches and press releases, and 

preparing the Secretary for public appearances. The office arranges 

media events and news conferences, and responds to media inquiries on the Department’s programs and other transportation-related 

issues. It also provides information to the Secretary on the opinions 

and reactions of the public and news media on these programs and 

issues. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

11 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,064,000 for the Office of Public 

Affairs, which is $91,000 less than the budget request and $5,000 

less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and the Deputy 

Secretary in carrying out their management functions and responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and external written materials. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,649,000 for the Executive Secretariat. The recommendation is $33,000 less than the budget request and $6,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization has 

primary responsibility for providing policy direction for small and 

disadvantaged business participation in the Department’s procurement and grant programs, and effective execution of the functions 

and duties under sections 8 and 15 of the Small Business Act, as 

amended. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,492,000, an amount that is 

$28,000 less than the budget request and $4,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response ensures the development, coordination and execution of plans and 

procedures for the Department of Transportation to balance transportation security requirements with the safety, mobility and economic needs of the Nation. The office keeps the Secretary and his 

advisors apprised of current developments and long-range trends in 

international issues, including terrorism, aviation, trade, transportation markets, and trade agreements. The office also advises the 

Department’s leaders on policy issues related to intelligence, threat 

information sharing, national security strategies and national preparedness and response planning. 

To ensure the Department is able to respond in disasters, the office prepares for and coordinates the Department’s participation in 

national and regional exercises and training for emergency personnel. The office also administers the Department’s Continuity of 

Government and Continuity of Operations programs and initiatives. Additionally, the office provides direct emergency response 

and recovery support through the National Response Framework 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

12 

and operates the Department’s Crisis Management Center. The 

center monitors the Nation’s transportation system 24 hours a day, 

7 days a week, and is the Department’s focal point during emergencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,578,000 for the Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response. The recommendation is 

$219,000 less than the request and $1,000 less than the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Chief Information Officer serves as the principal adviser to the Secretary on matters involving information 

technology, cyber security, privacy, and records management. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $13,678,000, which is $3,982,000 

less than the budget request and $579,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level. 

The recommended level includes sufficient funds to retain seven 

positions added to the office this past year by redirecting funds 

that had been previously used for contract support. This level does 

not include additional resources for the Department’s cyber security initiative because those funds are provided under a separate 

appropriation. The Committee appreciates the Department’s efforts 

to improve its cyber security, but is concerned that a major increase in the size of the office will create difficulties beyond the 

budget year. The fiscal constraints the Committee faces today are 

significantly tighter than they have been in recent years, and will 

likely only grow more so in the coming years. The Committee 

therefore urges the Department to limit growth in this office to 

those positions that the Department can realistically sustain in future years. 

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $526,944,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2,000,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 550,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides grants and credit assistance to State and 

local governments, transit agencies or a collaboration of such entities for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure 

that will have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan 

area or a region. Eligible projects include highways and bridges, 

public transportation, freight and passenger rail, and port infrastructure. The Department awards grants on a competitive basis; 

however, the Department must ensure an equitable geographic distribution of funds and an appropriate balance in addressing the 

needs of urban and rural communities. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

13 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $550,000,000 for grants 

and credit assistance for investment in significant transportation 

projects, which is $23,056,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The administration requested no funds for this program, which offers an important source of funding for projects that 

are difficult to fund through the Department’s formula grant programs. The Committee urges the Department to give priority consideration to applications for projects that would complete a large, 

multi-phase effort, or that involve collaborations among more than 

one State. 

Credit Assistance Challenge.—Traditionally, the Federal Government has invested in our Nation’s infrastructure by providing 

grants to State and local governments. The Department distributes 

most of these grants by formula, and while the grants almost always require a local match, the Federal share of investment does 

not usually fall below 80 percent of a project’s total cost. Recent 

constraints on the Federal budget, however, have sparked greater 

interest in other forms of Federal investment, such as bonding authority, direct loans, and Federal guarantees of private debt. These 

tools offer the possibility that a small expenditure of Federal dollars will leverage greater financial investments from State and 

local governments, or from the private sector. 

The disadvantage of this approach is that it may place barriers 

between Federal resources and transportation projects that offer 

public benefits and deserve Federal investment. In order to take 

advantage of new bonding authority or Federal credit assistance, a 

project sponsor must possess a certain level of financial sophistication, the authority to enter into new debt under the State and local 

laws, and access to a new stream of revenues that can be dedicated 

to debt repayment. Such barriers stand in the way of many transportation projects, including ones that can pass strict cost-benefit 

tests or offer safety improvements that will save lives. 

The funding provided as National Infrastructure Investments— 

commonly referred to as the TIGER program—supports a mix of 

grants, direct loans, and loan guarantees. In this way, the Committee seeks to balance the need to leverage Federal dollars as 

much as possible with the need to ensure that Federal assistance 

remains accessible to transportation projects across the country. 

The Committee believes that National Infrastructure Investments offers a good model for investing smartly in our national infrastructure. The program offers credit assistance through the Department’s Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 

Act [TIFIA] program, which allows every $1 provided in the bill to 

leverage $30 in transportation infrastructure investment. Furthermore, because applicants often compete by offering strong local 

matches, even the grants provided under this program offer unusually large opportunities to leverage Federal resources. The Department has signed 32 TIGER grants using the funding provided as 

part of the fiscal year 2010 appropriations act. For these grants, 

the TIGER funding covers only 46 percent of the projects’ total 

costs on average. The Department expects this percentage to drop 

further still as more grant agreements are signed. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

14 

The Committee, however, believes that the balance between 

grants and credit assistance can be pushed further, and so it has 

increased the percentage of TIGER funds that the Department may 

use to provide credit assistance. The Committee understands that 

the vast majority of applicants remain interested in grants, and 

recognizes that the Nation’s slow economic recovery may not make 

it easier for applicants to take advantage of credit assistance. For 

this reason, the bill language remains permissive and does not, at 

present, establish a hard requirement for the amount of credit assistance provided with TIGER funding. 

The Committee therefore challenges the Department to work 

with applicants in order to find ways of making credit assistance 

accessible to them. The Department has placed a high priority on 

reaching out to the transportation community in order to educate 

them about the TIGER program, and these outreach activities offer 

a good opportunity for highlighting the value of requesting credit 

assistance as a way to put together a competitive application. In 

addition, the Committee understands that the Department has 

tried to shorten the amount of time it takes for a project sponsor 

to navigate its application process for credit assistance under the 

TIFIA program. This effort could prove especially important for enticing TIGER applicants to consider using the TIFIA program. 

Protections for Rural Areas.—The Committee continues to believe 

that our Federal infrastructure programs must benefit communities across the country. For this reason, the Committee continues 

to require the Secretary to award grants and credit assistance in 

a manner that ensures an equitable geographic distribution of 

funds and an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban 

and rural communities. The Committee also set aside funding for 

projects located in rural areas, and included specific provisions to 

match grant requirements with the needs of rural areas. In addition, the Committee has lowered the minimum size of a grant 

awarded to a rural area and increased the Federal share of the 

total project cost. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $4,990,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 17,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,990,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Financial Management Capital program is a new multi-year 

business transformation initiative to streamline and standardize 

the financial systems and business processes across the Department of Transportation. The initiative includes upgrading and enhancing the commercial software used for DOT’s financial systems, 

improving the cost and performance data provided to managers, 

and instituting new accounting standards and mandates. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is recommending $4,990,000 to support the Secretary’s Financial Management Capital initiative, which is 

$12,010,000 less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

15 

OIG Evaluation.—The Committee appreciates the importance of 

revamping the Department’s financial management capital, but is 

not convinced that the Department has shown evidence of the program’s success to date. For this reason, the Committee directs the 

OIG to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations on the Department’s investments in financial management capital by May 30, 2012. This report should provide an 

evaluation of the Department’s investment plans and its progress 

to date in effectively carrying out its plans. The report should also 

include an assessment of the extent to which the investments being 

made today will offer the Department the flexibility to use its new 

financial management tools to address a variety of future needs, 

many of which the Department may not be able to anticipate at 

this time. 

Funding from OST and the Modal Administrations.—The Committee continues to be interested in balancing the needs of OST 

and each of the modal administrations. The Committee notes that 

the OST budget documents do not provide detailed justifications for 

the Financial Management Capital initiative, including a clear delineation of the amount of funding requested for this initiative by 

OST and the amount of funding included in the budget request of 

each of the modes. The Committee directs OST to include this information in its budget justifications for fiscal year 2013. The Committee also reminds the Secretary of language that continues to be 

included in the bill that limits OST’s ability to approve new assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal administrations for new activities, unless a reprogramming of funds is requested and approved by the Committee. 

Period of Availability.—The Committee has included language to 

limit the availability of funding for this program to a period of 2 

fiscal years. The Committee appreciates that the Financial Capital 

Management initiative entails significant capital investments, and 

that the obligations for such investments can be difficult to plan. 

However, the fiscal constraints under which the Committee completes its work have become challenging over the past year. The 

Committee cannot afford to provide resources that the Department 

will not obligate in a timely manner. 

CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $10,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Cyber Security Initiative is a new effort to close performance 

gaps in the Department’s cyber security. The initiative includes 

support for essential program enhancements, infrastructure improvements and contractual resources to enhance the security of 

the Department’s computer network and reduce the risk of security 

breaches. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

16 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 to support 

the Secretary’s Cyber Security Initiative. No funds for this activity 

were included in the budget request for fiscal year 2012 or provided 

for fiscal year 2011. 

The Department requested funding to improve its cyber security 

for the first time in its budget request for fiscal year 2011, and the 

Chief Information Officer demonstrated to the Committee a clear 

need to improve cyber security at the Department. As a major department of the Federal Government with the responsibility to 

manage the Nation’s civil airspace and maintain inventories of our 

transportation infrastructure, the Department of Transportation 

must protect the security of its computer systems and data collections. Unfortunately, because the Department was funded by a fullyear continuing resolution, the Committee was unable to accommodate this request. 

The Department’s budget request for fiscal year 2012 was submitted before the final resolution of the fiscal year 2011 budget 

process, and for this reason, it assumes the Committee already provided adequate resources to improve the Department’s cyber security. For fiscal year 2012, the Committee seeks to rectify this situation by providing $10,000,000 to improve cyber security at the Department of Transportation. 

Period of Availability.—The Committee included language to 

limit the availability of funding for the initiative to a period of 2 

fiscal years. The Committee cannot afford to provide resources that 

the Department will not obligate in a timely manner. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $9,648,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 9,661,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,648,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity matters, 

formulating civil rights policies and procedures for the operating 

administrations, investigating claims that small businesses were 

denied certification or improperly certified as disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the Department’s conduct of its 

civil rights responsibilities and making final determinations on 

civil rights complaints. In addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally operated and federally assisted transportation programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a funding level of $9,648,000 for the 

Office of Civil Rights for fiscal year 2012. The recommendation is 

$13,000 less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

17 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $9,799,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 9,824,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Secretary performs those research activities and 

studies which can more effectively or appropriately be conducted at 

the departmental level. This research effort supports the planning, 

research, and development activities needed to assist the Secretary 

in the formulation of national transportation policies. The program 

is carried out primarily through contracts with other Federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and 

private firms. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for transportation planning, research, and development, which is $824,000 less than the 

budget request and $799,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level. 

The Committee has not included language giving the Department 

the authority to use funds provided under this heading for the development, coordination, and analysis of data collection procedures 

and national performance measures. This language was included 

for the first time in the fiscal year 2010 bill, but the Committee 

notes that the Department has the underlying authority to use its 

funding for these purposes without any additional language being 

included in an appropriations act. The Committee therefore urges 

the Department to exercise its existing authority and to use its 

funding to ensure that transportation policies and investments are 

supported by sound data analysis. 

With the funding made available for transportation planning, research and development, $1,000,000 is to be made available to conduct the study required by section 9007 of SAFETEA–LU (Public 

Law 109–59). 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2011 ..................................................................................... $147,596,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 1 ......................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 147,596,000 

1Proposed without limitation. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Working Capital Fund [WCF] provides technical and administrative services to the Department’s operating administrations 

and other Federal entities. The services are centrally performed in 

the interest of economy and efficiency and are funded through negotiated agreements with Department operating administrations 

and other Federal customers and are billed on a fee-for-service 

basis to the maximum extent possible. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

18 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $147,596,000 on activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. For fiscal year 

2012, the administration has proposed to remove the obligation 

limitation on the Working Capital Fund, and then use the fund to 

pay for a long list of new initiatives. The cost of these initiatives, 

however, would actually be borne by each of the agencies within 

the Department, and the budget requests of each of these agencies 

include significant increases to be paid into the Working Capital 

Fund. In order to fund other priorities, the Committee has not provided these additional funds to each of the agencies at the Department, and has kept a tight limitation on the fund. The Committee 

also continues to insist that the discipline of an annual limitation 

is necessary to keep assessments and services of the Working Capital Fund in line with costs. 

As in past years, the bill specifies that the limitation on the 

Working Capital Fund shall apply only to the Department and not 

to services provided by other entities. The Committee directs that 

services shall be provided on a competitive basis to the maximum 

extent possible. 

The Committee notes that the ‘‘transparency paper’’ included in 

the justifications for fiscal year 2012 provides essential information 

on total budgetary resources for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and the Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, including the balance of resources provided through the 

Working Capital Fund and direct appropriations. Therefore, the 

Committee directs the Department to update this ‘‘transparency 

paper’’ and include it in the budget justifications for fiscal year 

2013. 

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriations Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2011 ......................................................................................................... $921,000 $18,367,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ..................................................................................................... 922,000 18,367,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................. 921,000 18,367,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Minority Business Resource Center of the Office of Small 

and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provides assistance in obtaining short-term working capital for disadvantaged, minority, 

and women-owned businesses. The program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime interest rates for transportation-related projects. As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 

1990, this account records the subsidy costs associated with guaranteed loans for this program as well as administrative expenses 

of this program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $351,000 to 

cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $570,000 for administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan program. 

These recommended levels add to a total funding level of $921,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

19 

for the Minority Business Resource Center. This total funding level 

is $1,000 less than the budget estimate and equal to the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level. The Committee also recommends a limitation 

on guaranteed loans of $18,367,000, the same amount as the budget request and the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $3,068,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 3,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,068,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides contractual support to assist small, 

women-owned, Native American, and other disadvantaged business 

firms in securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of transportation-related projects that involve Federal spending. Separate 

funding is provided for these activities since this program provides 

grants and contract assistance that serve Department-wide goals 

and not just OST purposes. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,068,000 for grants and contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year 2012. The 

recommendation is $32,000 less than the budget request and equal 

to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations Mandatory 1 Total 

Appropriation, 2011 ................................................................................... $149,700,000 $50,000,000 $199,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 .............................................................................. 123,254,000 50,000,000 173,254,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 143,000,000 50,000,000 193,000,000 

1 From overflight fees provided to the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41742. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides funding for the Essential Air Service 

[EAS] program, which was created to continue air service to communities that had received federally mandated air service prior to 

deregulation of commercial aviation in 1978. The program currently provides subsidies to air carriers serving small communities 

that meet certain criteria. 

The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 

(Public Law 104–264) authorized the collection of user fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] to aircraft that neither take off from, nor land in, the United States. In 

addition, the act stipulated that the first $50,000,000 of these socalled ‘‘overflight fees’’ must be used to finance the EAS program. 

In the event of a shortfall in fees, the law requires FAA to make 

up the difference from other funds available to the agency. No such 

shortfall has occurred, however, since fiscal year 2005. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

20 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the appropriation of $143,000,000 

for the EAS program. This appropriation would be in addition to 

$50,000,000 of overflight fees collected by the Federal Aviation Administration. The Committee also expects that about $17,000,000 

in obligated balances will remain available in the next fiscal year, 

allowing the Department to support a total program level for EAS 

of $210,000,000. The recommendation is $19,746,000 more than the 

budget request, and $6,700,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

The administration requested an appropriation of $123,254,000 

for the Essential Air Service program, expecting that those funds 

would be added to $50,000,000 in overflight fees and an estimated 

$22,000,000 in unobligated balances of funds provided in previous 

years. The Committee understands that fewer unobligated balances 

are now expected to be available by the beginning of fiscal year 

2012, and that program costs next year may be higher than were 

originally anticipated. Therefore, the Committee recommendation 

provides more funds as a direct appropriation than were requested 

by the administration in order to account for the most recent estimates. 

Transfer Authority.—The nature of the EAS program makes it 

extremely difficult to predict what the true program costs will be 

during fiscal year 2012. For this reason, the Committee continues 

to include bill language that directs the Secretary to transfer to the 

EAS program such sums as may be necessary to continue service 

to all eligible EAS points in fiscal year 2012. These funds may 

come from other funds directly administered by, or appropriated to, 

the Office of the Secretary. 

Maintaining Air Service for EAS Communities.—The Airline Deregulation Act, passed in 1978, gave airlines the freedom to choose 

what service to provide to communities across the country. Congress recognized that, after deregulation, small communities would 

be the most vulnerable to losing the air service that provided essential mobility and connected them to the larger aviation network. 

As a result, Congress created the Essential Air Service program to 

guarantee that small communities who were served by the airlines 

before deregulation would continue to be provided with air service. 

Now, more than 30 years after the deregulation of the airline industry, the economics of providing subsidized air service are profoundly different than they were when the EAS program was created. The number of air carriers that can provide the air service 

covered by the EAS program continues to drop, even with the 

promise of a Federal subsidy. In addition, the requirement to use 

15-passenger seat aircraft adds to the cost of the program. The 

fleet of such aircraft continues to age and grow more difficult for 

airlines to maintain. As a result of these changes, the amount of 

direct appropriations required to continue the EAS guarantee of air 

service has more than doubled in just the past 4 years. 

The Committee remains committed to maintaining EAS and protecting the air service of communities participating in the program. 

For that reason, the Committee has repeatedly denied requests 

from the administration to require a local cost share from particirfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

21 

pating communities, and the bill continues to include a provision 

to prevent the Administration from implementing a cost share program. The Committee believes that such a requirement undermines the purpose of the EAS program. 

In the current budgetary environment, however, the dramatic 

growth in the EAS program has become unsustainable. The Committee believes that it can best protect air service for communities 

that are participating in the EAS program by ensuring that it will 

be able to sustain the cost of the program. 

The bill therefore includes two provisions requested by the administration that are designed to restrict the growth of the program. The administration proposed limiting EAS funding to communities within the 48 contiguous States that received subsidies on 

October 1, 2011. The Committee has included this provision in the 

bill, but with an amendment to protect communities that received 

subsidies at any time during fiscal year 2011, or received notification during fiscal year 2011 from an airline that intends to discontinue its service and that is required by the Department to continue such service. This amendment will prevent the limitation 

from becoming an arbitrary cap based on the record of a single day. 

The administration also proposed repealing the requirement for 

15-passenger seat aircraft, and the Committee has included this 

provision in the bill. The Committee, however, expects the Department to use this new flexibility judiciously. The Department should 

use it for communities where historical passenger levels indicate 

that smaller aircraft would still accommodate the great majority of 

passengers, or for communities where viable proposals for service 

are not available. The Committee does not expect the Department 

to use this flexibility simply to lower program costs if a community 

can show regular enplanements levels that would justify larger aircraft. 

The following table reflects the points in the continental United 

States currently receiving service and the annual rates as of January 1, 2011. 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER 

[Data is based on September 1, 2011 rates and CY 2010 passengers] 

State EAS communities 

Est. miles to 

nearest hub 

(S, M, or L) 

Average 

enplanements 

per day 

Subsidy rates at 9/1/11 

Passenger 

total at 

12/31/10 

Subsidy per 

passenger at 

12/31/10 

AL Muscle Shoals ................................. 60 26.7 $1,782,928 16,795 $106.16 

AR El Dorado/Camden ........................... 107 4.7 2,060,725 2,494 826.27 

AR Harrison ........................................... 86 6.8 1,591,119 3,503 454.22 

AR Hot Springs ...................................... 51 2.8 1,288,527 1,555 828.63 

AR Jonesboro ......................................... 82 2.3 799,992 940 851.06 

AZ Kingman .......................................... 121 3 1,168,390 1,860 628.17 

AZ Page ................................................. 282 18.3 1,559,206 11,704 133.22 

AZ Prescott ............................................ 102 15.8 1,832,233 8,929 205.20 

AZ Show Low ......................................... 154 10.1 1,719,058 5,947 289.06 

CA Crescent City ................................... 314 44.9 1,781,888 28,815 61.84 

CA El Centro .......................................... 101 16.5 1,852,091 9,732 190.31 

CA Merced ............................................. 60 8.1 1,961,174 4,023 487.49 

CA Visalia .............................................. 47 6.5 1,746,507 3,670 475.89 

CO Alamosa ........................................... 164 22 1,987,155 13,416 148.12 

CO Cortez ............................................... 255 19.2 1,847,657 12,702 145.46 

CO Pueblo .............................................. 36 18.3 1,299,821 10,277 126.48 

GA Athens .............................................. 72 6.8 1,051,386 6,715 156.57 

IA Burlington ........................................ 74 16.2 2,171,241 5,447 398.61 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

22 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER—Continued 

[Data is based on September 1, 2011 rates and CY 2010 passengers] 

State EAS communities 

Est. miles to 

nearest hub 

(S, M, or L) 

Average 

enplanements 

per day 

Subsidy rates at 

9/1/11 

Passenger 

total at 

12/31/10 

Subsidy per 

passenger at 

12/31/10 

IA Fort Dodge ....................................... 91 31.3 1,910,995 15,607 122.44 

IA Mason City ....................................... 131 43.9 1,017,545 26,220 38.81 

IL Decatur ............................................ 126 14.9 3,082,403 4,536 679.54 

IL Marion/Herrin ................................... 123 26.1 2,053,783 14,003 146.67 

IL Quincy .............................................. 111 26.5 1,946,270 14,909 130.54 

KS Dodge City ....................................... 150 12.1 1,842,749 7,189 256.33 

KS Garden City ...................................... 202 32 1,884,303 18,575 101.44 

KS Great Bend ...................................... 114 3 1,257,617 1,453 865.53 

KS Hays ................................................. 175 28 1,954,327 16,380 119.31 

KS Liberal/Guymon ................................ 138 14.3 1,958,570 8,534 229.50 

KS Salina .............................................. 97 6.9 1,493,381 3,325 449.14 

KY Owensboro ....................................... 105 1.2 1,068,773 1,164 918.19 

KY Paducah ........................................... 146 59 569,923 38,695 14.73 

MD Hagerstown ...................................... 78 10.5 1,203,167 6,283 191.50 

ME Augusta/Waterville ........................... 69 15.8 1,362,616 8,385 162.51 

ME Bar Harbor ....................................... 178 36.9 2,298,533 22,258 103.27 

ME Presque Isle/Houlton ........................ 270 46.5 2,812,853 29,854 94.22 

ME Rockland .......................................... 80 24.1 1,420,545 14,464 98.21 

MI Alpena .............................................. 174 32.8 1,532,660 17,080 89.73 

MI Escanaba ......................................... 112 35.8 2,090,534 18,439 113.38 

MI Hancock/Houghton ........................... 219 71.2 1,404,714 41,936 33.50 

MI Iron Mountain/Kingsford .................. 105 29 2,090,534 14,042 148.88 

MI Ironwood/Ashland ............................ 213 4.4 1,387,589 1,982 700.10 

MI Manistee .......................................... 110 18.8 1,694,794 6,731 251.79 

MI Muskegon ......................................... 42 38.7 660,720 25,127 26.30 

MI Sault Ste. Marie .............................. 278 50.7 237,825 28,445 8.36 

MN Chisholm/Hibbing ............................ 199 34.3 2,938,878 20,531 143.14 

MN International Falls ........................... 298 46 1,309,886 26,821 48.84 

MN Thief River Falls .............................. 305 7.7 1,230,322 4,996 246.26 

MO Cape Girardeau ............................... 127 16.4 1,469,715 9,084 161.79 

MO Fort Leonard Wood ........................... 85 18.4 2,437,766 9,633 253.06 

MO Joplin ............................................... 70 45.5 2,778,756 7,695 361.11 

MO Kirksville .......................................... 137 11.6 1,422,110 4,041 351.92 

MS Greenville ......................................... 124 21.6 1,606,662 12,005 133.83 

MS Hattiesburg/Laurel ........................... 85 43.1 1,398,798 26,393 53.00 

MS Meridian ........................................... 84 54.2 678,936 33,193 20.45 

MS Tupelo .............................................. 94 39 921,878 23,658 38.97 

MT Glasgow ........................................... 285 5.4 1,166,049 2,951 395.14 

MT Glendive ........................................... 223 2.2 1,193,391 879 1,357.67 

MT Havre ............................................... 230 3.3 1,162,329 1,838 632.39 

MT Lewistown ........................................ 103 1.4 1,325,733 1,367 969.81 

MT Miles City ......................................... 145 3.2 1,621,821 2,062 786.53 

MT Sidney .............................................. 272 9.8 2,932,152 6,700 437.63 

MT West Yellowstone ............................. 89 39.9 427,757 8,845 48.36 

MT Wolf Point ........................................ 293 2.1 1,502,378 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 

ND Devils Lake ...................................... 402 17.4 1,459,493 9,731 149.98 

ND Dickinson ......................................... 319 42.7 2,019,177 20,670 97.69 

ND Jamestown ....................................... 97 16.1 1,963,220 9,097 215.81 

NE Alliance ............................................ 233 4.9 1,108,701 2,929 378.53 

NE Chadron ........................................... 290 6.4 1,108,701 3,753 295.42 

NE Grand Island .................................... 138 25.2 2,215,582 13,050 169.78 

NE Kearney ............................................ 181 31.9 1,965,740 18,809 104.51 

NE McCook ............................................ 256 6.2 1,796,795 3,888 462.14 

NE North Platte ..................................... 255 26.4 1,871,765 15,784 118.59 

NE Scottsbluff ....................................... 192 27.7 1,507,185 17,479 86.23 

NH Lebanon/White River Jct. ................. 124 26.6 2,347,744 15,379 152.66 

NM Alamogordo/Holloman AFB .............. 89 1.2 1,169,337 748 1,563.28 

NM Carlsbad .......................................... 149 7.9 1,350,253 5,111 264.19 

NM Clovis ............................................... 102 7.3 1,592,157 4,442 358.43 

NM Silver City/Hurley/Deming ................ 134 4.8 1,594,092 3,022 527.50 

NV Ely .................................................... 234 1 1,752,067 471 3,719.89 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

23 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER—Continued 

[Data is based on September 1, 2011 rates and CY 2010 passengers] 

State EAS communities 

Est. miles to 

nearest hub 

(S, M, or L) 

Average 

enplanements 

per day 

Subsidy rates at 

9/1/11 

Passenger 

total at 

12/31/10 

Subsidy per 

passenger at 

12/31/10 

NY Jamestown ....................................... 76 12.4 1,639,254 7,407 221.31 

NY Massena .......................................... 138 11.4 1,708,911 6,652 256.90 

NY Ogdensburg ..................................... 105 8.2 1,702,697 4,450 382.63 

NY Plattsburgh ...................................... 82 42.1 1,379,257 21,401 64.45 

NY Saranac Lake/Lake Placid ............... 132 18.4 1,366,538 11,336 120.55 

NY Watertown ........................................ 54 9 1,665,889 5,137 324.29 

OR Pendleton ......................................... 185 16.5 1,463,681 9,745 150.20 

PA Altoona ............................................. 112 14 1,674,147 8,869 188.76 

PA Bradford ........................................... 77 10.4 1,087,306 5,810 187.14 

PA DuBois ............................................. 112 18.6 2,228,996 11,091 200.97 

PA Franklin/Oil City ............................... 85 5.5 915,101 3,179 287.86 

PA Johnstown ........................................ 84 25.7 1,674,147 15,966 104.86 

PA Lancaster ......................................... 28 19.2 1,372,474 11,210 122.43 

PR Mayaguez ......................................... 105 13.6 1,198,824 8,583 139.67 

SD Huron ............................................... 121 6.8 1,742,886 4,123 422.72 

SD Watertown ........................................ 207 26.9 1,769,019 15,329 115.40 

TN Jackson ............................................ 86 4.3 1,225,628 4,539 270.02 

TX Victoria ............................................ 93 5.5 1,856,692 9,963 186.36 

UT Cedar City ........................................ 179 19.1 1,477,125 10,469 141.10 

UT Moab ................................................ 256 10.1 1,798,370 5,489 327.63 

UT Vernal .............................................. 150 15.2 1,421,478 8,767 162.14 

VA Staunton .......................................... 113 37.1 2,180,461 20,707 105.30 

VT Rutland ............................................ 69 18.5 797,141 10,879 73.27 

WI Eau Claire ........................................ 92 58 1,732,372 33,154 52.25 

WV Beckley ............................................. 168 7.8 2,313,457 4,449 519.99 

WV Clarksburg ....................................... 96 18.1 1,488,219 11,237 132.44 

WV Morgantown ..................................... 75 32.7 1,488,219 20,353 73.12 

WV Parkersburg/Marietta ....................... 110 19.5 2,642,237 10,209 258.81 

WY Laramie ............................................ 145 24 1,181,572 14,908 79.26 

WY Worland ............................................ 161 9 1,770,336 5,485 322.76 

1 NA = Not available. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF

TRANSPORTATION

Section 101 prohibits the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from obligating funds originally provided to a modal administration in order to approve assessments or reimbursable agreements, unless the Department follows the regular process for the 

reprogramming of funds, including congressional notification. 

Section 102 prohibits the use of funds for an EAS local participation program. 

Section 103 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation or his 

designee to engage in activities with States and State legislatures 

to consider proposals related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities. 

Section 104 rescinds unobligated balances of funds made available for compensation for general aviation operations in a prior appropriations act. 

Section 105 allows the Department of Transportation to make 

use of the Working Capital Fund in providing transit benefits to 

Federal employees. 

Section 106 places simple administrative requirements on the 

Department of Transportation’s Credit Council. These requirements include posting a schedule of meetings on the DOT Web site, 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

24 

posting the meeting agendas on the Web site, and recording the 

minutes of each meeting. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for the safe 

movement of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system 

of airports. The Federal Government’s regulatory role in civil aviation began with the creation of an Aeronautics Branch within the 

Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 

1926. This act instructed the agency to foster air commerce; designate and establish airways; establish, operate, and maintain aids 

to navigation; arrange for research and development to improve 

such aids; issue airworthiness certificates for aircraft and major 

aircraft components; and investigate civil aviation accidents. In the 

Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, these activities were transferred to 

a new, independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority. 

Congress streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the creation of two separate agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and 

the Civil Aeronautics Board. When the Department of Transportation [DOT] began its operations in 1967, the Federal Aviation 

Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] 

and became one of several modal administrations within DOT. The 

Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of 

the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased to exist in 1984. 

Responsibility for the investigation of civil aviation accidents was 

given to the National Transportation Safety Board in 1967. FAA’s 

mission expanded in 1995 with the transfer of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from the Office of the Secretary, and 

decreased in December 2001 with the transfer of civil aviation security activities to the new Transportation Security Administration. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 

2012 amounts to $15,938,441,000, including both new budget authority and a limitation on the obligation of contract authority. 

This funding level is $632,441,000 more than the budget request 

and $9,088,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for fiscal year 2012: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2011 enacted 2012 estimate 

Operations ................................................................................ $9,513,962,000 $9,823,000,000 $9,635,710,000 

Facilities and equipment ......................................................... 2,730,731,000 2,870,000,000 2,630,731,000 

Research, engineering, and development ............................... 169,660,000 190,000,000 158,000,000 

Grants-in-aid for airports ........................................................ 3,515,000,000 2,424,000,000 3,515,000,000 

War risk insurance program extension .................................... .............................. ¥1,000,000 ¥1,000,000 

Total ............................................................................ 15,929,353,000 15,306,000,000 15,938,441,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

25 

OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $9,513,962,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 9,823,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,635,710,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides funds for the operation, maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers administrative and 

managerial costs for the FAA’s regulatory, international, commercial space, medical, research, engineering and development programs, as well as policy oversight and agency management functions. The operations appropriation includes the following major activities: 

—the air traffic organization which operates, on a 24-hour daily 

basis, the national air traffic system, including the establishment and maintenance of a national system of aids to navigation, the development and distribution of aeronautical charts 

and the administration of acquisition, and research and development programs; 

—the regulation and certification activities including establishment and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety 

and development of standards, rules and regulations governing 

the physical fitness of airmen as well as the administration of 

an aviation medical research program; 

—the office of commercial space transportation; and 

—headquarters, administration and other staff and support offices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $9,635,710,000 for FAA 

operations. This funding level is $187,290,000 less than the budget 

request, and $121,748,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level. The Committee recommendation derives $5,000,000,000 of 

the appropriation from the airport and airway trust fund. The balance of the appropriation will be drawn from the general fund of 

the Treasury. 

As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the event resources are insufficient to operate a safe and effective air traffic 

control system. 

The Committee continues three provisions enacted in prior years 

relating to premium pay, aeronautical charting and cartography, 

and Government-issued credit cards. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and fiscal year 2011 enacted level: 

FAA OPERATIONS 

Fiscal year— Committee 2011 recommendation enacted 

2012 

estimate 

Air traffic organization ............................................................ $7,458,352,000 $7,646,145,000 $7,560,815,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

26 

FAA OPERATIONS—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee 2011 recommendation enacted 

2012 

estimate 

Aviation safety ......................................................................... 1,250,514,000 1,283,568,000 1,253,381,000 

Commercial space transportation ........................................... 15,021,000 26,625,000 15,005,000 

Financial services .................................................................... 112,071,000 112,369,000 112,459,000 

Human resource management ................................................. 99,005,000 102,125,000 98,858,000 

Region and center operations ................................................. 337,133,000 374,955,000 337,944,000 

Staff offices ............................................................................. 193,286,000 214,203,000 207,065,000 

Information services ................................................................ 48,580,000 63,010,000 50,183,000 

Total ............................................................................ 9,513,962,000 9,823,000,000 9,635,710,000 

FAA Administrative Expenses.—The Committee expects the FAA 

to use its Federal resources judiciously, and does not believe that 

providing retention bonuses to the same employee for repeated 

years in a row represents a responsible use of those taxpayer dollars. A retention bonus should offer a short-term enticement to stay 

at the FAA for employees possessing critical and hard-to-replace 

skills, thereby giving the agency extra time to find a suitable replacement. When given every year to a broad spectrum of employees, however, a retention bonus acts as a loophole in the Federal 

administrative process, allowing the FAA to give a permanent pay 

raise to certain employees without being held accountable to the 

regular administrative requirements. The Committee is concerned 

about the FAA’s failure to manage this authority responsibly, and 

continues to include bill language directing the Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration to be the approving official for any request for a retention bonus by the FAA during fiscal 

year 2012. 

Controller Placement.—The Committee continues to be concerned 

about how the FAA places its recently hired air traffic controllers 

at facilities across the country. The FAA currently does not have 

a data-based method for determining the relative strengths and 

weaknesses of air traffic controllers leaving the FAA academy and 

assigning them to specific facilities based on those attributes. 

At the present time, the FAA administers a test when a candidate first applies to the FAA. Based on the results of this test, 

the FAA assigns each candidate to one of three categories: not 

qualified, qualified, and well qualified. This test has been shown to 

predict the likelihood that a candidate will succeed at the FAA 

Academy, but it has not been proven to predict the candidate’s performance as an air traffic controller. Furthermore, due to the large 

number of people applying to the FAA in comparison to the number 

of available positions, the FAA currently accepts only a fraction of 

the ‘‘well-qualified’’ candidates. The test therefore reveals no differences among the candidates entering the academy. Another examination is conducted at the end of the academy program, but results of this test are given only as pass or fail, and the overwhelming majority of candidates pass the exam. As a result of 

these limitations, neither test offers the FAA a way to differentiate 

among its new air traffic controllers. 

The Committee understands that, whenever possible, the FAA’s 

placement committee will consider the background of academy 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

27 

graduates when placing them at various air traffic control facilities. 

In addition, recently, the FAA has done a better job of ensuring 

that inexperienced, newly hired air traffic controllers do not get 

placed in positions where they would be responsible for controlling 

complex or crowded airspace. While testifying before the Committee this past May, the Administrator of the FAA credited the 

Agency’s new contract with its controllers with providing the incentives necessary to see experienced controllers moving into positions 

that control complex airspace. Without these incentives to fill those 

positions, he said, ‘‘. . . we were forced to assign people out of the 

academy. There was no other way to fill the vacancies. That is not 

a good practice.’’ 

The Committee, however, believes that these practices do not 

take the place of a systematic method for placing air traffic controllers based on an objective measure of their performance. The Office 

of the Inspector General [OIG] issued two reports—one in 2004 another in 2010—that recommended the FAA develop an objective, reliable method for placing new air traffic controllers at FAA facilities based on a measurement of their skill. The Inspector General 

also testified before the Committee this past May, saying, ‘‘In the 

course of conducting our 2010 audit of FAA’s practices for assigning 

new air traffic controllers, we found that, in fact, new air traffic 

controllers were promised duty assignments before they had even 

started training. It appears to us to have been part of the recruitment and hiring process. There was little attention, if any, paid at 

the time to an objective, reasonable method based on the new air 

traffic controllers’ capabilities . . .’’ 

The FAA has said that it is working to develop a test and restructure the training at its academy in order to better place its 

newly hired controllers. The Committee, however, notes that this 

work has been ongoing for no less than 9 years. While the Committee values thorough and well-researched work, it is not yet convinced that the FAA places a high priority on these efforts. 

The Committee is losing its patience with hearing about years of 

research and testing, while seeing no tangible result coming out of 

the FAA. The Committee has therefore included language in the 

bill that requires the FAA to submit a report that details the results of the FAA’s work in this area. The bill language requires this 

report to be comprehensive; describe all of the findings and conclusions reached during the FAA’s efforts to develop an objective, 

data-driven method for placing newly hired air traffic controllers; 

list all available options for establishing such a method; and discuss the benefits and challenges of each option. Because the Committee has experience with not receiving reports from the FAA in 

a timely manner, the bill language includes a deadline for the submission of this report not later than May 31, 2012. 

Block Aircraft Registration Request [BARR] Program.—This summer, the Secretary of Transportation decided that he would dismantle the Block Aircraft Registration Request [BARR] program. 

This program has allowed owners and operators of general aviation 

aircraft to prevent the movements of their aircraft from being publicly disseminated and easily available on the Internet. After providing only a brief period of time for public comment, the Secretary 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

28 

made his decision, having received 680 comments opposed to the 

new policy and only 5 comments in favor of it. 

In the Department’s press release on the repeal of the BARR program, the Secretary is quoted as saying, ‘‘This action is in keeping 

with the Obama administration’s commitment to transparency in 

government.’’ He also added, ‘‘Both general aviation and commercial aircraft use the public airspace and air traffic control facilities, 

and the public has a right to information about their activities.’’ 

The Committee, however, does not believe that publicizing the 

movements of specific general aviation aircraft does anything to 

improve the transparency of the operations or policies of the Federal Government. The Secretary’s decision does indeed make more 

data accessible to the public than was previously available, but the 

Committee does not believe that this data has any bearing on a 

citizen’s right to bear witness to the work of the Federal Government. 

Furthermore, the Committee does not concur that the public has 

a right to access information merely because it relates to the use 

of public facilities. People drive their cars on roads and bridges 

built on Federal lands and paid with taxpayer dollars; however, the 

Committee does not believe that means their movements and activities should be broadcast to the public at large. Likewise, the 

manifests of commercial airlines are not made publicly available, 

even though commercial flights use the same public airspace and 

air traffic control facilities as the general aviation aircraft that 

were covered under the BARR program. On the contrary, efforts 

are generally made to protect the privacy of people lawfully going 

about their daily business. 

For these reasons, the Committee has included language in the 

bill that effectively reverses the Secretary’s decision. This bill language prohibits the Department from funding the Aircraft Situational Display to Industry program unless it honors the request of 

owners and operators of a general aviation aircraft to block the display of their aircraft registration number. 

Inspector Workforce.—In the current budgetary environment, the 

Committee cannot afford to make significant increases to the Department’s workforce. Staff growth increases costs not only for the 

budget year, but also in every subsequent year, and the Committee 

expects that fiscal constraints will only get tighter in the future. 

The Committee, however, continues to place a high priority on the 

workforce of aviation inspectors at the FAA. Protecting the safety 

of our air transportation system is the fundamental mission of the 

agency, and these inspectors form the backbone of that effort. The 

Committee recommendation therefore includes an increase of 

$7,000,000 for an additional 60 positions in Office of Aviation 

Flight Standards [AFS] and another $960,000 for an increase of 11 

positions in the Office of Aircraft Certification [AIR]. The Committee notes that this increase is lower than the administration’s 

budget request, which had included an increase of $10,500,000 for 

an additional 90 positions in AFS and another $1,440,000 for another 16 positions in AIR. 

In previous years, the Committee has included language in the 

bill that protected any funding increases for aviation safety inspectors by prohibiting the Department from using those funds for any 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

29 

other purpose. These staff increases remain a high priority, and the 

Committee recommendations dedicate scarce resources to the inspector workforce. Nevertheless, the Committee recognizes that 

this bill language diminishes the flexibility of the FAA. With resources so scarce, the Committee does not believe that it is in the 

best interest of the FAA to put such strong limitations on the use 

of its funding. The Committee also believes that it can best protect 

the public interest by ensuring that taxpayer dollars can always be 

put to the highest priority, even if those priorities shift during the 

course of a fiscal year. For these reasons, the Committee has not 

included the same language in this year’s bill. The Committee, 

however, identifies the staff increases for AFS and AIR as a congressional item of interest and expects the FAA to use the funding 

increases for their intended purpose. Furthermore, the Committee 

directs the FAA to submit to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations a request for approval before redirecting any of the 

funding provided for staff increases in AFS or AIR to any other activity. 

FAA Public Hearing.—The Committee directs the Federal Aviation Administration to hold a public hearing with representatives 

from the relevant Federal agencies in western Maine upon completion of the Air National Guard’s environmental impact statement 

proposing modifications to the Condor 1 and Condor 2 military operating areas. The Committee understands that the Air National 

Guard, as the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] process, has sought to meet the minimum legal requirements for public participation and comment under the NEPA 

process. However, the Committee notes the authorization of low altitude military training in the proposed airspace would affect areas 

that significantly contribute to the local economy and areas that 

are culturally and environmentally sensitive. In particular, the proposed low altitude training airspace covers four ski resorts, 47,700 

acres of a federally recognized Indian tribe reservation, and 144 

miles of the Appalachian Trail. Furthermore, the Committee notes 

the FAA is the only Federal agency that can modify special airspace and that the FAA may adopt the Air National Guard’s EIS 

in whole, or in part, once the final EIS has been issued. In addition, the Committee directs the FAA to report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to the issuance of a 

record of decision regarding the modification of the Condor 1 and 

Condor 2 military operations areas that includes a summary of any 

public meeting and hearing and a list of the comments, questions, 

and responses presented at these meetings and hearings. 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $2,730,731,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2,870,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,630,731,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Facilities and Equipment appropriation provides funding for 

modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway facilities, 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

30 

equipment, and systems. The appropriation also finances major 

capital investments required by other agency programs, experimental research and development facilities, and other improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the national airspace 

system [NAS]. The program aims to keep pace with the increasing 

demands of aeronautical activity and remain in accordance with 

the Federal Aviation Administration’s comprehensive 5-year capital 

investment plan [CIP]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,630,731,000 

for the Facilities and Equipment account of the Federal Aviation 

Administration. The recommended level is $239,269,000 less than 

the budget estimate. The administration, however, had requested 

an additional $250,000,000 as mandatory funding that is not provided through the appropriations process. When taking into account the administration’s total requested level, the Committee recommendation is $489,269,000 less than the budget estimate. The 

recommended level is also $100,000,000 less than the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level. 

Budget Activities Format.—The Committee directs that the fiscal 

year 2012 budget request for the Facilities and Equipment account 

conform to the same organizational structure of budget activities as 

displayed below. 

The Committee’s recommended distribution of funds for each of 

the budget activities funded by the appropriation follows: 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

Fiscal year 2012 

discretionary 

estimate 

Additional fiscal 

year 2012 

mandatory 

request 

Total fiscal year 

2012 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Activity 1: Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation: 

Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping .............................................................. $31,900,000 $1,500,000 $33,400,000 $24,000,000 

NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory .................................................................. 1,000,000 ........................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Facilities .... 15,000,000 ........................ 15,000,000 14,000,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Infrastructure Sustainment ............................................ 7,500,000 4,900,000 12,400,000 7,500,000 

Next Generation Network Enabled Weather ......... 27,350,000 ........................ 27,350,000 18,000,000 

Data Communications for Trajectory Based Operations [NGATS] ............................................. 143,000,000 7,200,000 150,200,000 109,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Technology Demonstration ...................................... 16,900,000 8,100,000 25,000,000 15,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Systems Development ........................................... 90,000,000 19,000,000 109,000,000 70,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Trajectory Based Operations ..................................... 9,300,000 13,700,000 23,000,000 7,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Reduce 

Weather Impact ............................................... 14,600,000 18,400,000 33,000,000 10,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—High 

Density/Arrivals/Departures ............................. 14,300,000 13,700,000 28,000,000 10,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Collaborative ATM ................................................ 28,000,000 25,000,000 53,000,000 22,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Flexible Terminals and Airports ............................. 36,300,000 21,800,000 58,100,000 32,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Safety, 

Security and Environment ............................... 5,000,000 3,000,000 8,000,000 ........................

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

31 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year 2012 

discretionary 

estimate 

Additional fiscal 

year 2012 

mandatory 

request 

Total fiscal year 

2012 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Next Generation Transportation System—System 

Network Facilities ............................................ 9,000,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Future 

Facilities .......................................................... 19,500,000 ........................ 19,500,000 10,000,000 

Joint Planning and Development Office [JPDO] .. 3,000,000 ........................ 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Next Generation—Performance Based Navigation [PBN]—Metroplex area RNAV/RNP .......... 26,200,000 ........................ 26,200,000 26,200,000 

Total, Activity 1 .......................................... 497,850,000 137,300,000 635,150,000 383,700,000 

Activity 2—Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment: 

En Route Programs: 

En Route Automation Modernization 

[ERAM] .................................................... 120,000,000 ........................ 120,000,000 148,500,000 

En Route Automation Modernization 

[ERAM]—D–SIDE Replace and Future 

Enhancements ........................................ ........................ 64,500,000 64,500,000 3,356,000 

En Route Communications Gateway 

[ECG] ...................................................... 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 2,000,000 

Next Generation Weather Radar 

[NEXRAD]—Provide ................................ 2,800,000 ........................ 2,800,000 2,800,000 

Air Traffic Control System Command Center [ATCSCC]—Relocation ..................... 3,600,000 ........................ 3,600,000 3,600,000 

ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements ............................................. 46,000,000 6,000,000 52,000,000 36,000,000 

Air Traffic Management [ATM] ................... 7,500,000 ........................ 7,500,000 7,500,000 

Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure ......................................................... 4,800,000 ........................ 4,800,000 4,800,000 

Air Traffic Control En Route Radar Facilities Improvements .................................. 5,800,000 ........................ 5,800,000 5,800,000 

Voice Switching and Control System 

[VSCS] .................................................... 1,000,000 ........................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Oceanic Automation System ....................... 6,000,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 4,000,000 

Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/ 

Ground Communications System 

[NEXCOM] ............................................... 45,150,000 ........................ 45,150,000 45,150,000 

System-Wide Information Management ...... 66,350,000 ........................ 66,350,000 66,350,000 

ADS–B NAS Wide Implementation .............. 285,100,000 ........................ 285,100,000 285,100,000 

Windshear Detection Service ...................... 1,000,000 ........................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Weather and Radar Processor [WARP] ....... 2,500,000 ........................ 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Collaborative Air Traffic Management 

Technologies—WP2 & 3 ........................ 41,500,000 ........................ 41,500,000 41,500,000 

Colorado ADS–B/WAM Cost Share .............. 3,800,000 2,000,000 5,800,000 3,800,000 

Automated Terminal Information System 

[ATIS] ...................................................... 1,000,000 ........................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Tactical Flow Time Based Flow Management ....................................................... 38,700,000 ........................ 38,700,000 38,700,000 

Subtotal, En Route Programs ............ 684,600,000 78,500,000 763,100,000 704,456,000 

Terminal Programs: 

Airport Surface Detection Equipment—Model X 

[ASDE–X] ......................................................... 2,200,000 ........................ 2,200,000 2,200,000 

Terminal Doppler Weather Radar [TDWR]—Provide .................................................................. 7,700,000 ........................ 7,700,000 6,000,000 

Standard Terminal Automation Replacement 

System [STARS] [TAMR Phase 1] .................... 25,000,000 ........................ 25,000,000 25,000,000 

Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement 

Program [TAMR Phase 3] ................................ 98,750,000 ........................ 98,750,000 98,750,000 

Terminal Automation Program ............................. 2,500,000 ........................ 2,500,000 2,500,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

32 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year 2012 

discretionary 

estimate 

Additional fiscal 

year 2012 

mandatory 

request 

Total fiscal year 

2012 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities—Replace ................................................................ 51,600,000 ........................ 51,600,000 51,600,000 

ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control 

[TRACON] Facilities—Improve ........................ 56,900,000 5,000,000 61,900,000 45,000,000 

Terminal Voice Switch Replacement [TVSR] ....... 10,000,000 ........................ 10,000,000 8,000,000 

NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards Compliance ............................................. 26,000,000 ........................ 26,000,000 20,000,000 

Airport Surveillance Radar [ASR–9] .................... 6,000,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 

Terminal Digital Radar [ASR–11] ....................... 3,900,000 ........................ 3,900,000 3,900,000 

Runway Status Lights ......................................... 29,800,000 ........................ 29,800,000 20,000,000 

National Airspace System Voice Switch [NVS] .... 19,800,000 ........................ 19,800,000 9,000,000 

Integrated Display System [IDS] ......................... 8,800,000 ........................ 8,800,000 8,800,000 

Remote Monitoring and Logging System 

[RMLS] ............................................................. 4,200,000 ........................ 4,200,000 4,200,000 

Mode S Service Life Extension Program [SLEP] .. 4,000,000 4,000,000 8,000,000 4,000,000 

ASR–8 Service Life Extension Program ............... 2,700,000 ........................ 2,700,000 ........................

Subtotal, Terminal Programs .......................... 359,850,000 11,000,000 370,850,000 314,950,000 

Flight Service Programs: 

Automated Surface Observing System [ASOS] .... 2,500,000 ........................ 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Flight Service Station [FSS] Modernization ......... 4,500,000 ........................ 4,500,000 4,500,000 

Weather Camera Program ................................... 4,800,000 ........................ 4,800,000 4,800,000 

Subtotal, Flight Service Programs .................. 11,800,000 ........................ 11,800,000 11,800,000 

Landing and Navigational Aids Program: 

VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range [VOR] with 

DME ................................................................. 5,000,000 ........................ 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Instrument Landing System [ILS]—Establish .... 5,000,000 ........................ 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS] for GPS 125,500,000 ........................ 125,500,000 110,000,000 

Runway Visual Range [RVR] ............................... 5,000,000 ........................ 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Approach Lighting System Improvement Program 

[ALSIP] ............................................................. 5,000,000 ........................ 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Distance Measuring Equipment [DME] ............... 5,000,000 ........................ 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Visual NAVAIDS—Establish/Expand .................... 3,400,000 ........................ 3,400,000 3,400,000 

Instrument Flight Procedures Automation 

[IFPA] ............................................................... 2,200,000 ........................ 2,200,000 2,200,000 

Navigation and Landing Aids—Service Life Extension Program [SLEP] .................................. 6,000,000 ........................ 6,000,000 7,000,000 

VASI Replacement—Replace with Precision Approach Path Indicator ..................................... 7,000,000 ........................ 7,000,000 8,000,000 

GPS Civil Requirements ....................................... 50,300,000 ........................ 50,300,000 36,000,000 

Runway Safety Areas—Navigational Mitigation .................................................................. 25,000,000 ........................ 25,000,000 23,000,000 

NAVAID Control, Interlock, and Monitoring 

Equipment [NCIME] ......................................... ........................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 ........................

Subtotal, Landing and Navigational Aids Programs .......................................................... 244,400,000 1,000,000 245,400,000 214,600,000 

Other ATC Facilities Programs: 

Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring ................................................................... 6,400,000 ........................ 6,400,000 4,400,000 

Unstaffed Infrastructure Sustainment ................ 18,000,000 4,600,000 22,600,000 15,000,000 

Aircraft-related Equipment Program ................... 11,700,000 ........................ 11,700,000 11,700,000 

Airport Cable Loop Systems—Sustained Support .................................................................. 5,000,000 ........................ 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Alaskan Satellite Telecommunications Infrastructure [ASTI] ............................................... 16,000,000 3,000,000 19,000,000 15,500,000 

Facilities Decommissioning ................................. 5,000,000 ........................ 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Electrical Power Systems—Sustain/Support ....... 85,600,000 10,000,000 95,600,000 68,000,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

33 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year 2012 

discretionary 

estimate 

Additional fiscal 

year 2012 

mandatory 

request 

Total fiscal year 

2012 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Aircraft Fleet Modernation ................................... 9,000,000 ........................ 9,000,000 6,000,000 

FAA Employee Housing and Life Safety Shelter 

System Service ................................................ 2,500,000 ........................ 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Subtotal, Other ATC Facilities Programs .... 159,200,000 17,600,000 176,800,000 133,100,000 

Total, Activity 2 .......................................... 1,459,850,000 108,100,000 1,567,950,000 1,378,906,000 

Activity 3—Non-Air Traffic Control Facilities and 

Equipment: 

Support Equipment: 

Hazardous Materials Management ............. 20,000,000 ........................ 20,000,000 20,000,000 

Aviation Safety Analysis System [ASAS] .... 30,100,000 ........................ 30,100,000 30,100,000 

Logistics Support Systems and Facilities 

[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 ............ 18,000,000 ........................ 18,000,000 16,000,000 

Information Security ................................... 17,000,000 2,000,000 19,000,000 15,000,000 

System Approach for Safety Oversight 

[SASO] .................................................... 23,600,000 ........................ 23,600,000 23,600,000 

Aviation Safety Knowledge Management 

Environment [ASKME] ............................. 17,200,000 ........................ 17,200,000 17,200,000 

Data Center Optimization ........................... 1,000,000 ........................ 1,000,000 ........................

Aerospace Medical Equipment Needs 

[AMEN] .................................................... 12,000,000 ........................ 12,000,000 10,000,000 

Subtotal, Support Equipment ............ 160,900,000 2,000,000 162,900,000 153,900,000 

Training, Equipment and Facilities: 

Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization .................................................................. 18,000,000 ........................ 18,000,000 15,000,000 

Distance Learning ................................................ 1,500,000 ........................ 1,500,000 1,500,000 

Subtotal, Training, Equipment and Facilities .............................................................. 19,500,000 ........................ 19,500,000 16,500,000 

Total, Activity 3 ............................................... 180,400,000 2,000,000 182,400,000 170,400,000 

Activity 4—Facilities and Equipment Mission Support: 

System Support and Services: 

System Engineering and Development Support ......................................................... 32,900,000 ........................ 32,900,000 28,500,000 

Program Support Leases ............................ 41,700,000 ........................ 41,700,000 40,000,000 

Logistics Support Services [LSS] ................ 11,700,000 ........................ 11,700,000 10,100,000 

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center 

Leases .................................................... 17,000,000 ........................ 17,000,000 17,000,000 

Transition Engineering Support .................. 13,000,000 ........................ 13,000,000 11,300,000 

Technical Support Services Contract 

[TSSC] ..................................................... 22,000,000 ........................ 22,000,000 19,100,000 

Resource Tracking Program [RTP] .............. 4,000,000 ........................ 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development [CAASD] ................................ 80,800,000 ........................ 80,800,000 71,000,000 

Aeronautical Information Management Program ....................................................... 26,300,000 2,600,000 28,900,000 20,224,000 

Permanent Change of Station [PCS] 

Moves ..................................................... 2,500,000 ........................ 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Total, Activity 4 ................................. 251,900,000 2,600,000 254,500,000 223,724,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

34 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year 2012 

discretionary 

estimate 

Additional fiscal year 2012 

mandatory 

request 

Total fiscal year 2012 

request 

Committee recommendation 

Activity 5—Personnel and Related Expenses: 

Personnel and Related Expenses ........................ 480,000,000 ........................ 480,000,000 474,000,000 

Total, All Activities .......................................... 2,870,000,000 250,000,000 3,120,000,000 2,630,730,000 

Protecting the Foundations of NextGen.—This Committee has 

long understood the value and importance of NextGen, the FAA’s 

effort to modernize the air traffic control system. Until this past 

year, the Committee has not only met the administration’s budget 

requests for NextGen, but also provided targeted increases to accelerate work in key areas. The Committee provided additional resources to the FAA for advances in the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast [ADS–B] program that would use this new 

technology for cockpit-to-cockpit interactions, and for reducing the 

separation between aircraft in certain situations. The Committee 

also provided additional resources for demonstrations of NetworkEnabled Operations that would apply this new technology to realworld applications, such as the integration of unmanned aerial systems in the national airspace. 

Even when there has been a steady stream of funding, however, 

the Committee has seen delays and management problems with 

some of the most important capital programs. For example, the En 

Route Automation Modernization [ERAM] program is now years 

behind the agency’s original targets, and only recently has the FAA 

started to work hand in hand with the air traffic controllers who 

will be working with the ERAM software on a daily basis. The 

Committee is also waiting for the FAA to make investment decisions on other capabilities that were part of the original selling 

points for NextGen, such as Next Generation Network Enabled 

Weather and Data Communications for Trajectory Based Operations. 

This past year, the budgetary environment in which the Committee conducted its work changed dramatically. For fiscal year 

2011, the Committee enacted the largest 1-year cut to discretionary 

spending in our Nation’s history. These tight fiscal constraints continue as the Committee develops a budget for fiscal year 2012, and 

the FAA should expect to see the constraints grow tighter in future 

years. 

The Committee therefore had to maintain a clear vision of its 

priorities while developing its funding recommendations. Protecting 

the foundations of the FAA’s NextGen effort remains at the top of 

these priorities, so the Committee recommendations include 

$285,100,000 for the ADS–B program and $66,350,000 for the System-Wide Information Management program. These funding levels 

are equal to the administration’s budget request. The Committee 

recommendations also include $98,750,000 for the Terminal Automation Modernization and Replacement, Phase 3 [TAMR] program, 

which is also equal to the administration’s budget request. Although not formally part of the NextGen effort, updating the FAA’s 

technology under the TAMR program is necessary in order to mainrfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

35 

tain the agency’s progress on the ADS–B program. Finally, the 

Committee recommendations include $148,500,000 for the ERAM 

program, a funding level that is $28,500,000 above the budget request. Based on information from the FAA, the Committee provides 

this additional funding to maintain the ERAM schedule in light of 

recent challenges. 

Fully investing in these programs means that the FAA will need 

to make sacrifices in other areas of capital investment. Reductions 

to the budget request will be felt throughout the account, including 

areas where the agency invests in basic physical infrastructure 

needs, such as improving its electrical power systems, air traffic 

control towers, and terminal radar approach control facilities. The 

Committee recommendations also include significant reductions to 

line items called ‘‘solution sets’’ that the agency uses to develop, 

test, and evaluate the next set of capabilities for NextGen before 

they become formal capital programs. The FAA’s work in developing these new capabilities has been slower than the agency originally anticipated, and the Committee believes that protecting the 

budgets of existing capital programs must take precedence over the 

testing and evaluation of future investments. 

Setting these clear priorities in the budget, however, is not 

enough to protect the NextGen program; the Committee needs to 

see more from the FAA itself. When funding for NextGen programs 

comes only by making sacrifices from so many other areas of capital investment at the FAA and other agencies, the FAA has a clear 

obligation to make good on every dollar invested in those programs. 

The FAA has made strategic changes to the management of its key 

NextGen programs like ERAM and SWIM, but the Committee 

notes that many of these improvements have been made only after 

programs suffered schedule delays or cost increases. The current 

budget environment does not afford the FAA this luxury anymore. 

Data Communications for Trajectory Based Operations 

(DataComm).—Advancing NextGen relies heavily on the ability of 

the FAA to move from an air traffic control system based on voice 

communication to a system that takes full advantage of data communication. When implemented, the DataComm program will improve safety by reducing the number of operational errors cased by 

voice communications, increase the efficiency of our national airspace system by reducing the daily workload of the FAA’s air traffic controllers, and enable other NextGen-related operational improvements that require the exchange of information that cannot 

be efficiently delivered through voice communications. 

Progress on the DataComm program has been disappointing. The 

Committee notes, however, that accelerating the program’s schedule relies on the FAA being able to achieve capabilities inherent in 

the ERAM program, which has experienced significant delays. The 

Committee recommendation includes $109,000,000 for the 

DataComm program, a level that is $34,000,000 less than the 

budget request. 

The Committee also directs the FAA to complete a report on the 

status of the DataComm program not later than 1 year after the 

enactment of this act. This report shall include the current budget, 

schedule, project organization, and leadership requirements for the 

program; a full description of how this program relates to other 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

36 

NextGen capabilities, including other FAA programs on which the 

implementation of DataComm relies, as well as other programs and 

capabilities that rely on the full implementation of DataComm; and 

a list of milestones and targets against which the development of 

DataComm can be measured. 

Navigation and Landing Aids—Service Life Extension Program 

[SLEP].—The Committee notes that Runway End Identifier Lights 

[REILs] improve airport safety by clearly indicating to pilots the 

approach end of the runway. The Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 for navigation and landing aids. This funding 

level is an increase of $1,000,000 more than the budget request. 

The Committee directs the FAA to use these additional funds for 

the procurement and installation of additional REIL systems. 

VASI Replacement—Replace With Precision Approach Path Indicator.—The FAA began to deploy Visual Approach Slope Indicator 

[VASI] systems in the 1960s to provide visual descent guidance to 

pilots as they approached an airport runway. Since that time, the 

international standard for these lighting systems has grown more 

sophisticated, and the FAA must now replace its VASI systems 

with Precision Approach Path Indicator [PAPI] systems to comply 

with the new standards. 

The Committee supports bringing FAA equipment into compliance with international standards, and recommends $8,000,000 for 

the replacement of VASI lighting systems with PAPI lighting systems. This funding level is $1,000,000 more than the budget request. The Committee directs the FAA to use the additional funding to procure additional PAPI systems. 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $169,660,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 190,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 157,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Research, Engineering and Development appropriation provides funding for long-term research, engineering, and development 

programs to improve the air traffic control system by increasing its 

safety and capacity, as well as reducing the environmental impacts 

of air traffic, as authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation Act, as amended. The programs 

are designed to meet the expected air traffic demands of the future 

and to promote flight safety through improvements in facilities, 

equipment, techniques, and procedures in order to ensure that the 

system will safely and efficiently handle future volumes of aircraft 

traffic. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $157,000,000 for the FAA’s research, engineering, and development activities. The recommended 

level of funding is $33,000,000 less than the budget request and 

$12,660,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

37 

A table showing the fiscal year 2011 enacted level, the fiscal year 

2012 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation follows: 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2011 enacted 2012 estimate 

Improve Aviation Safety: 

Fire Research and Safety ................................................................. 7,158,000 8,157,000 7,158,000 

Propulsion and Fuel Systems ........................................................... 2,301,000 3,611,000 2,300,000 

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety .............................................. 2,534,000 2,605,000 2,534,000 

Atmospheric Hazards—Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety ........... 6,534,000 5,404,000 5,404,000 

Continued Airworthiness ................................................................... 10,632,000 12,589,000 10,632,000 

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research .......................... 1,147,000 1,502,000 1,147,000 

Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors ........... 7,083,000 6,162,000 6,162,000 

System Safety Management ............................................................. 11,693,000 10,027,000 10,027,000 

Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors ................. 10,364,000 10,634,000 10,364,000 

Aeromedical Research ....................................................................... 11,098,000 11,617,000 11,000,000 

Weather Program .............................................................................. 16,142,000 16,366,000 16,043,000 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems ............................................................. 3,635,000 3,504,000 3,504,000 

NextGen Alternative Fuels for General Aviation ............................... 998,000 2,071,000 1,500,000 

Improve Efficiency: 

Joint Program and Development Office ............................................ 13,764,000 14,067,000 6,500,000 

NextGen: Wake Turbulence ................................................................ 10,664,000 10,674,000 9,064,000 

NextGen: Air Ground Integration ....................................................... 5,603,000 10,545,000 5,303,000 

NextGen: Self Separation .................................................................. 5,260,000 9,934,000 5,060,000 

NextGen: Weather Technology in the Cockpit ................................... 2,507,000 9,186,000 2,207,000 

Reduce Environmental Impacts: 

Environment and Energy ................................................................... 15,074,000 15,327,000 15,074,000 

NextGen: Environmental Research .................................................... 20,060,000 20,523,000 20,523,000 

Mission Support: 

System Planning and Resource Management .................................. 1,730,000 1,718,000 1,717,000 

Technical Center Laboratory Facility ................................................ 3,679,000 3,777,000 3,777,000 

Total .............................................................................................. 169,660,000 190,000 157,000,000 

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS RESEARCH

FAA Centers of Excellence.—The Committee is aware of the numerous issues facing FAA as technology develops to aid the integration of unmanned aerial vehicles into the national air space. 

The need for this integration is even more urgent given the recent 

numerous incidents of national disasters including a major oil spill, 

devastating tornadoes and unprecedented flooding. The Committee 

supports FAA efforts to achieve the goal of integrating unmanned 

aerial systems into the national airspace, including the FAA’s preliminary steps toward the establishment of UAS test ranges. The 

Committee directs the FAA to establish an FAA Unmanned Aerial 

System [UAS] Center of Excellence [COE] to address a host of 

issues surrounding integration of UAS systems into the National 

Airspace System during times of emergency and utilize these lessons learned to provide essential data to the Center as it works toward nonemergency integration. The Committee further directs 

that the new COE shall provide recommendations for a safe, nonexclusionary airspace designation for cooperative manned and unmanned flight operations; conduct research to support UAS interagency requirements to include emergency response, maritime contingencies, and bio-fuel clean fuel technologies; conduct flight testing of UAS and related navigation procedures and equipment; enrfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

38 

courage leveraging and coordination of such research and development activities with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Defense; provide recommendations 

on certification, flight standards, and air traffic requirements; and 

facilitate UAS technology transfer to other civilian and defense 

agencies, initially focusing upon emergency management. The Administrator shall take into consideration geographical and climate 

diversity, relevant research capability, and participating consortia 

from the public and private sectors, educational institutions, and 

nonprofit organizations. The FAA should ensure that lessons 

learned regarding UAS certification and evaluation in one regional 

office are consistently applied at other regional offices so that there 

is a consistent, nationwide approach to airspace integration. 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2011 enacted 2012 estimate 

Resources from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund: 

Limitation on obligations ............................................................ $3,515,000,000 $2,424,000,000 $3,515,000,000 

Liquidation of contract authorization ......................................... 3,550,000,000 3,600,000,000 4,691,000,000 

Resources from the general fund of the Treasury: 

Mandatory budget authority ....................................................... .......................... 3,100,000,000 ..........................

Total ........................................................................................ 3,515,000,000 5,524,000,000 3,515,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Funding for grants-in-aid to airports pays for capital improvements at the Nation’s airports, including those investments that 

emphasize capacity development, safety improvements, and security needs. Other priority areas for funding under this program include improvements to runway safety areas that do not conform to 

FAA standards, investments that are designed to reduce runway 

incursions, and aircraft noise compatibility planning and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$3,515,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year 2012. 

The recommended limitation on obligations is $1,091,000,000 more 

than the budget estimate. The administration, however, had requested an additional $3,100,000,000 from the general fund of the 

Treasury, which the Committee does not include in its recommendations. When taking into account the administration’s general fund request, the Committee recommendation is 

$2,009,000,000 less than the budget estimate. The recommended 

limitation is equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

In addition, the Committee recommends a liquidating cash ap- propriation of $4,691,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports. The recommended level is equal to the budget estimate and $1,141,000,000 

more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. This appropriation is 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

39 

sufficient to cover the liquidation of all obligations incurred pursuant to the limitation on obligations set forward in the bill. 

Administrative Expenses.—The Committee recommends 

$101,000,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding level 

is equal to the budget request, and $7,578,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level. 

The Committee recommendation includes funding for various investments in the workforce of the FAA airports offices, including 

field operations positions to help the FAA improve its grant oversight and implement safety-related reforms; an additional engineer 

to work with airports, manufacturers, and the FAA’s Air Traffic 

Organization on the introduction of new surveillance systems; an 

additional seven positions in financial management to oversee the 

use of Federal airport grants and ensure the integrity of the program; contractor support and two additional positions to implement 

airport geographic information systems; and contractor support for 

the collection of airport data. 

The Committee recommendations do not include any increase in 

funding for airport grants over the fiscal year 2011 enacted level, 

and so it is vital that the funding provided in the bill is used effectively. The Committee believes that these strategic investments in 

the staff of the FAA’s airports offices will improve its management 

of the grant program and make each grant a more effective investment. 

Airport Cooperative Research.—The Committee recommends 

$15,000,000 for the airport cooperative research program. This 

funding level is equal to the budget estimate and the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level. 

Airport Technology.—The Committee recommends $29,250,000 

for airport technology research. This funding level is equal to the 

budget request, and $6,778,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 

level. The recommended funding level includes an additional 

$2,000,000 to invest in critical airport research areas. For example, 

better data on aircraft braking and friction performance can prevent incidents in which airplanes run off the runway during landings. The Committee, however, directs the FAA to invest these additional resources in contract support for its research activities 

rather than staffing increases. As fiscal constraints grow tighter in 

the future, any additions to FAA staff that are made in fiscal year 

2012 could potentially crowd out other needs in coming years. 

Small Community Air Service Development Program 

[SCASDP].—The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Small 

Community Air Service Development Program. This funding level 

is equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The administration 

requested no funds for this program for fiscal year 2012. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Section 110 limits the number of technical staff years at the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to no more than 

600 in fiscal year 2009. 

Section 111 prohibits funds in this act to be used to adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide the FAA 

‘‘without cost’’ buildings, maintenance, or space for FAA services. 

The prohibition does not apply to negotiations between the FAA 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

40 

and airport sponsors concerning ‘‘below market’’ rates for such 

services or to grant assurances that require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the FAA for air traffic control facilities. 

Section 112 permits the Administrator to reimburse FAA appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) as 

fees are collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 45303. 

Section 113 allows funds received to reimburse the FAA for providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities to be 

credited to the Operations account. 

Section 114 prohibits funds limited in this act for the Airport Improvement Program to be provided to an airport that refuses a request from the Secretary of Transportation to use public space at 

the airport for the purpose of conducting outreach on air passenger 

rights. 

Section 115 prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium pay 

except in those cases where the individual actually worked on a 

Sunday. 

Section 116 prohibits the FAA from using funds provided in the 

bill to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates through a Government-issued credit card. 

Section 117 allows all airports experiencing the required level of 

boardings through charter and scheduled air service to be eligible 

for funds under 49 U.S.C. 47114(c). 

Section 118 requires approval from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration of the Department of Transportation for 

retention bonuses for any FAA employee. 

Section 119 limits to 20 percent the cost-share required under 

the contract tower cost-share program. 

Section 119A requires that, upon request by a private owner or 

operator of an aircraft, the Secretary block the display of that 

owner or operator’s aircraft registration number in the Aircraft Situational Display to Industry program. 

Section 119B allows the FAA to provide back pay to employees 

who were furloughed when the agency’s authority to spend from 

the Airport and Airway Trust Fund expired temporarily. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA] is, in partnership with State and local governments, to 

foster the development of a safe, efficient, and effective highway 

and intermodal system nationwide including access to and within 

national forests, national parks, Indian lands, and other public 

lands. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of 

$41,846,000,000 would be provided for the activities of the Federal 

Highway Administration in fiscal year 2012. The recommendation 

is $29,407,000,000 less than the budget request. The total program 

level under the Committee recommendations is equal to the fiscal 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

41 

year 2011 enacted level; however, the 1-year continuing resolution 

for fiscal year 2011 also included a rescission of $3,130,000,000 of 

unused contract authority. The following table summarizes the 

Committee’s recommendations: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2011 enacted 2012 estimate 

Federal-aid Highway program obligation limitation ............... $41,107,000,000 $70,414,000,000 $41,107,000,000 

Wireless initiative (transfer to RITA) ....................................... .............................. 100,000,000 ..............................

Emergency relief and equity bonus exempt contract authority ......................................................................................... 739,000,000 739,000,000 739,000,000

Rescission of unused contract authority ................................. ¥3,130,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Total ............................................................................ 38,716,000,000 71,253,000,000 41,846,000,000 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation, 2011 ..................................................................................... $413,533,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 437,172,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 415,533,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

offices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$415,533,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. This limitation is $21,639,000 less than the budget request and $2,000,000 

more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

In addition, $3,220,000 in contract authority above this limitation is made available for the administrative expenses of the Appalachian Regional Commission in accordance with section 104 of 

title 23, United States Code. 

The recommended limitation on administrative expenses includes 

$2,000,000 for the Delphi system and accounting services, IPv6 

transition, and FHWA’s share in the implementation of the financial management business transformation. 

The Committee appreciates the administration’s request for 

$3,200,000 to invest in better data and reporting systems. The 

Committee agrees with the administration that FHWA must improve its ability to track highway spending and meet any new oversight responsibilities that may be given to the agency in the next 

authorization bill. FHWA, however, has not yet completed an assessment of these capabilities. The Committee cannot provide additional resources without the confidence that FHWA has a clear investment plan and an accurate estimate of its cost. The Committee 

expects FHWA to take inventory of its current capabilities, evalurfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

42 

ate what future capabilities the agency needs, and estimate how 

much it would cost to achieve each of those capabilities. 

National Performance Review Teams.—The American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 [ARRA] included $27,500,000,000 for 

investment in State and local highway projects. This investment 

came in addition to the funding provided under the regular Federal-aid Highway program each year. FHWA quickly identified the 

need for strong oversight of ARRA funds in order to ensure that 

the Federal investment was used effectively and managed appropriately. In addition to relying on its division offices to oversee 

ARRA funds, FHWA instituted national review teams that would 

travel to each State, independently assess the use of Federal dollars, uncover problems and help identify corrective actions, and collect data the agency can use in analyzing national trends. 

The Committee commends FHWA for establishing an effective 

tool to improve its oversight of Federal highway grants. The Office 

of Inspector General [OIG] evaluated the national review teams 

this past year, and found that FHWA needed to make certain improvements to ensure that review teams report complete and accurate data, and that the agency is able to use this data to discover 

national trends. By the time OIG published its final report in January, FHWA had taken the actions necessary to improve the program and close out all recommendations. 

The effectiveness of national review teams will require FHWA to 

continue its efforts over an extended period so that the agency can 

determine whether corrective actions that were promised early in 

the process have been fulfilled. 

The Committee supports FHWA’s decision to expand its use of 

national review teams to the regular Federal-aid Highway program, and understands that the agency will use funding available 

under its existing resources to support the staff and travel needs 

of its national review teams. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2011 ..................................................................................... $41,107,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 69,675,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,107,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal-aid Highway program provides financial support to 

States and localities for development, construction, and repair of 

highways and bridges through grants. The program is financed 

from the Highway Trust Fund and most of the funds are distributed through apportionments and allocations to States. Title 23 of 

the United States Code and other supporting legislation provide 

authority for the various activities of the FHWA. Funding is provided by contract authority, with program levels established by annual limitations on obligations set in appropriations acts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2012 Federal-aid 

highways obligations to $41,107,000,000 which is $28,568,000,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

43 

less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level for the Federal-aid highway program. The obligation 

limitation included in the budget request is consistent with the administration’s legislative proposal for a long-term authorization of 

the surface transportation programs; however, as discussed earlier 

in this report, the Committee must base its recommendation on the 

assumption that the levels of contract authority currently provided 

under the short-term extension of surface transportation programs 

will be continued throughout fiscal year 2012. The Committee cannot presuppose what legislation will be enacted through the authorization process. 

Within the overall limitation on fiscal year 2011 Federal-aid 

highway obligations, the Committee recommends limiting fiscal 

year 2012 obligations on transportation research to $429,800,000. 

The recommendation for transportation research is equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. This specific limitation controls spending for the transportation research and technology programs of the 

FHWA, and it includes the intelligent transportation systems; surface transportation research; technology deployment, training and 

education; university transportation research; and the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics. 

In addition, the bill includes a provision that allows the FHWA 

to collect and spend fees in order to pay for the services of expert 

firms in the field of municipal and project finance to assist the 

agency in the provision of TIFIA credit instruments. 

The following table shows the obligation limitation provided to 

each State under the Committee’s recommended funding level: 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION 

[Fiscal year 2011, President’s request and Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2012] 

Fiscal year 2011 1 Fiscal year budget 

request 2012 2

Committee 

recommendation 3

Formula Programs 

ALABAMA .................................................................................. $719,499,894 $1,226,778,051 $722,346,356 

ALASKA ..................................................................................... 448,795,497 560,045,343 450,404,959 

ARIZONA ................................................................................... 689,245,750 1,203,689,492 691,868,726

ARKANSAS ................................................................................ 479,626,299 775,324,982 481,488,065 

CALIFORNIA .............................................................................. 3,421,473,255 5,606,414,083 3,434,981,232 

COLORADO ................................................................................ 507,641,720 801,389,451 509,648,785 

CONNECTICUT ........................................................................... 468,654,887 832,517,927 470,471,904 

DELAWARE ................................................................................ 157,171,591 243,338,638 157,793,905 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ........................................................... 152,612,544 242,292,113 153,237,661 

FLORIDA .................................................................................... 1,779,520,834 3,099,531,819 1,786,190,737 

GEORGIA ................................................................................... 1,214,718,614 2,197,921,162 1,219,311,512 

HAWAII ...................................................................................... 161,399,324 261,126,659 162,053,555

IDAHO ....................................................................................... 269,568,494 454,761,532 270,596,821

ILLINOIS .................................................................................... 1,344,744,025 2,031,551,855 1,349,966,039 

INDIANA .................................................................................... 895,910,212 1,553,880,180 899,286,909 

IOWA ......................................................................................... 457,727,766 673,439,752 459,555,095 

KANSAS ..................................................................................... 360,820,113 629,231,899 362,286,583 

KENTUCKY ................................................................................ 628,450,910 1,052,214,391 630,896,823 

LOUISIANA ................................................................................ 644,013,112 977,068,592 646,547,933 

MAINE ....................................................................................... 177,079,140 270,581,469 177,808,009

MARYLAND ................................................................................ 569,962,080 967,643,444 572,237,731 

MASSACHUSETTS ...................................................................... 579,573,923 1,022,584,726 581,923,354 

MICHIGAN ................................................................................. 997,921,662 1,820,267,505 1,001,837,530 

MINNESOTA ............................................................................... 603,633,915 957,604,286 605,986,276 

MISSISSIPPI .............................................................................. 449,447,444 730,280,415 451,224,902 

MISSOURI ................................................................................. 858,658,537 1,441,041,316 861,974,425 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

44 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION—Continued 

[Fiscal year 2011, President’s request and Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2012] 

Fiscal year 2011 1 Fiscal year budget 

request 2012 2

Committee 

recommendation 3

MONTANA .................................................................................. 377,525,663 587,731,006 378,953,534 

NEBRASKA ................................................................................ 275,166,553 448,516,965 276,269,157 

NEVADA .................................................................................... 343,156,600 427,970,445 344,483,527 

NEW HAMPSHIRE ...................................................................... 156,903,986 282,570,949 157,525,489 

NEW JERSEY ............................................................................. 944,367,136 1,614,206,835 948,034,084 

NEW MEXICO ............................................................................ 339,203,209 587,861,145 340,522,797 

NEW YORK ................................................................................ 1,596,443,684 2,798,466,583 1,602,814,803 

NORTH CAROLINA ..................................................................... 983,190,394 1,741,227,449 986,984,930 

NORTH DAKOTA ........................................................................ 236,322,354 380,421,957 237,268,802 

OHIO ......................................................................................... 1,243,591,571 2,196,483,756 1,248,414,711 

OKLAHOMA ................................................................................ 601,558,415 939,765,732 603,926,875 

OREGON .................................................................................... 466,361,039 695,834,220 468,226,246 

PENNSYLVANIA ......................................................................... 1,559,308,478 2,789,833,928 1,565,522,761 

RHODE ISLAND ......................................................................... 206,290,321 305,057,085 207,139,426 

SOUTH CAROLINA ..................................................................... 592,210,888 1,010,364,821 594,480,657 

SOUTH DAKOTA ......................................................................... 260,941,109 409,659,995 261,960,941 

TENNESSEE ............................................................................... 781,257,424 1,351,171,507 784,270,692 

TEXAS ....................................................................................... 2,970,543,549 5,171,740,868 2,981,805,048 

UTAH ......................................................................................... 305,185,298 448,480,722 306,379,206 

VERMONT .................................................................................. 190,674,842 256,557,574 191,457,655 

VIRGINIA ................................................................................... 943,236,368 1,637,037,077 946,888,113 

WASHINGTON ............................................................................ 635,435,628 1,022,845,223 638,006,371 

WEST VIRGINIA ......................................................................... 405,181,815 660,574,011 406,730,768 

WISCONSIN ............................................................................... 691,609,718 1,197,977,361 694,218,188 

WYOMING .................................................................................. 231,317,734 417,696,304 232,231,571 

SUBTOTAL ................................................................... 36,374,855,318 61,012,574,600 36,516,442,179 

Non-formula programs ............................................................. 4,732,144,682 8,662,425,400 4,590,557,821 

TOTAL .......................................................................... 41,107,000,000 69,675,000,000 41,107,000,000 

1 Actual fiscal year 2011 Distribution of Obligation Limitation (FHWA Notice 4520.209). 

2 Estimated for the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget; distribution of obligation limitation based on State apportionment shares under SAFETEA–LU; funding for Puerto Rico is apportioned under the FY 2012 President’s Budget but included in ‘‘Non-formula programs’’ for purposes of comparison. 3 Estimated assuming extension of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2010, as amended, through September 30, 2012. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM

The roads and bridges that make up our Nation’s highway infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States have much 

flexibility to use Federal-aid highway funds to best meet their individual needs and priorities, with FHWA’s assistance and oversight. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU], the highway, highway 

safety, and transit authorization through fiscal year 2009, made 

Federal-aid highways funds available in various categories of 

spending. These categories were continued by each of the shortterm extension acts that continued the authorities provided under 

SAFETEA–LU. 

National Highway System [NHS].—The Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] of 1991 authorized the NHS, 

which was subsequently established as a 161,000-mile road system 

by the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. This 

system serves major population centers, intermodal transportation 

facilities, international border crossings, and major destinations. 

The NHS program provides funding for this system, consisting of 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

45 

roads that are of primary Federal interest: the current interstate; 

other rural principal arterials; urban freeways and connecting 

urban principal arterials; facilities on the Defense Department’s 

designated Strategic Highway Network; and roads connecting the 

NHS to intermodal facilities. The Federal share for the NHS program is generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding-scale adjustment, with an availability period of 4 years. 

Interstate Maintenance [IM].—The 46,876-mile Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways retains 

a separate identity within the NHS. The IM program finances 

projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and reconstruct the interstate system. Reconstruction that increases capacity, other than 

HOV lanes, is not eligible for IM funds. The Federal share for the 

IM program is 90 percent, subject to the sliding-scale adjustment, 

and funds are available for 4 years. 

Surface Transportation Program [STP].—STP is a flexible program that may be used by States and localities for projects on any 

Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, transit 

capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. A portion of STP funds are set aside for transportation enhancements and State suballocations are provided. The Federal 

share for STP is generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding-scale 

adjustment, with a 4-year availability period. 

Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation.—The bridge program enables States to improve the condition of their bridges through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive maintenance. 

The funds are available for use on all bridges, including those on 

roads functionally classified as rural minor collectors and as local. 

Bridge program funds have a 4-year period of availability with a 

Federal share for all projects, except those on the interstate system, of 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment. For 

those bridges on the interstate system, the Federal share is 90 percent, subject to the sliding-scale adjustment. 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program 

[CMAQ].—The CMAQ program directs funds toward transportation 

projects and programs to help meet and maintain national ambient 

air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate 

matter. A minimum one-half percent of the apportionment is guaranteed to each State. 

Highway Safety Improvement Program [HSIP].—The highway infrastructure safety program features strategic safety planning and 

performance. The program also devotes additional resources and 

supports innovative approaches to reducing highway fatalities and 

injuries on all public roads. 

Federal Lands Highways.—This category funds improvements for 

forest highways; park roads and parkways; Indian reservation 

roads; and refuge roads. The Federal lands highway program provides for transportation planning, research, engineering, and construction of highways, roads, parkways, and transit facilities that 

provide access to or within public lands, national parks, and Indian 

reservations. 

Equity Bonus.—The equity bonus program provides additional 

funds to States to ensure that each State’s total funding from apportioned programs and for high-priority projects meets certain eqrfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

46 

uity considerations. Each State is guaranteed a minimum rate of 

return on its share of contributions to the highway account of the 

Highway Trust Fund, and a minimum increase relative to the average dollar amount of apportionments under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA–21. Certain States will maintain the share of total apportionments they each received during 

TEA–21. An open-ended authorization is provided, ensuring that 

there will be sufficient funds to meet the objectives of the equity 

bonus. Of the total amount of funds provided for this program, each 

year $639,000,000 is exempt from the obligation limitation recommended by the Committee. 

Emergency Relief [ER].—Section 125 of title 23, United States 

Code, provides $100,000,000 annually for the ER program. This 

funding is not subject to the obligation limitation recommended by 

the Committee. This program provides funds for the repair or reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and bridges and federally 

owned roads and bridges that have suffered serious damage as the 

result of natural disasters or catastrophic failures. The ER program 

supplements the commitment of resources by States, their political 

subdivisions, or Federal agencies to help pay for unusually heavy 

expenses resulting from extraordinary conditions. 

Highways for Life.—This program provides funding to demonstrate and promote state-of-the-art technologies, elevated performance standards, and new business practices in the highway 

construction process that result in improved safety, faster construction, reduced congestion from construction, and improved quality 

and user satisfaction by inviting innovation, new technologies, and 

new practices to be used in highway construction and operations. 

Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities.—This program provides funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal 

facilities. 

National Scenic Byways.—This program provides funding for 

roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as All 

American Roads [AAR] or National Scenic Byways [NSB]. These 

roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities. 

Transportation and Community and System Preservation 

[TCSP].—The TCSP program provides grants to States and local 

governments for planning, developing, and implementing strategies 

to integrate transportation and community and system preservation plans and practices. These grants may be used to improve the 

efficiency of the transportation system; reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment; reduce the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure; and provide efficient access to 

jobs, services, and centers of trade. 

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation [TIFIA].— 

The TIFIA credit program provides funds to assist in the development of major infrastructure facilities through greater non-Federal 

and private sector participation, building on public willingness to 

dedicate future revenues or user fees in order to receive transportation benefits earlier than would be possible under traditional 

funding techniques. The TIFIA program provides secured loans, 

loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit that may be drawn 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

47 

upon to supplement project revenues, if needed, during the first 10 

years of project operations. 

As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records, for this program, the subsidy costs associated with 

the direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit obligated in 

1992 and beyond (including modifications of direct loans or loan 

guarantees that resulted from obligations or commitments in any 

year), as well as administrative expenses of this program. The subsidy amounts are estimated on present value basis; the administrative expenses are estimated on a cash basis. 

Appalachian Development Highway System.—This program 

makes funds available to construct highways and access roads 

under section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 

1965. Under SAFETEA–LU, funding is distributed among the 13 

eligible States based on the latest available cost-to-complete estimate prepared by the Appalachian Regional Commission. 

Delta Region Transportation Development Program.—This program encourages multistate transportation planning and supports 

the development of transportation infrastructure in the eight 

States that comprise the region of the Mississippi Delta: Alabama, 

Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and 

Tennessee. 

Railway-highway Crossing Hazard Elimination in High-speed 

Rail Corridors.—This program provides grants for safety improvements at grade crossings between railways and highways on designated high-speed rail corridors. 

LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $41,846,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 70,414,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,846,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal-aid Highway program is funded through contract 

authority paid out of the Highway Trust Fund. Most forms of budget authority provide the authority to enter into obligations and 

then to liquidate those obligations. Put another way, it allows a 

Federal agency to commit to spending money on specified activities 

and then to actually spend that money. In contrast, contract authority provides only the authority to enter into obligations, but not 

the authority to liquidate those obligations. The authority to liquidate obligations—to actually spend the money committed with 

the contract authority—must be provided separately. The authority 

to liquidate obligations under the Federal-aid highways program is 

provided under this heading. This liquidating authority allows 

FHWA to follow through on commitments already allowed under 

current law; it does not provide the authority to enter into new 

commitments for Federal spending. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $41,846,000,000. The recommended level is $28,568,000,000 less 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

48 

than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level. This level of liquidating authority is necessary to pay outstanding obligations from various highway accounts pursuant to 

this and prior appropriations acts. 

EMERGENCY RELIEF

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $1,900,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Emergency Relief program is a part of the overall Federalaid Highway program. It funds the repair or reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and roads on Federal lands which have suffered 

serious damage as a result of (1) natural disasters or (2) catastrophic failures from an external cause. The program supplements 

the commitment of resources by States, their political subdivisions, 

or other Federal agencies to help pay for unusually heavy expenses 

resulting from extraordinary conditions. 

The applicability of the Emergency Relief program to a natural 

disaster is based on the extent and intensity of the disaster. Damage to highways must be severe, occur over a wide area, and result 

in unusually high expenses to the highway agency. Applicability of 

the program to a catastrophic failure due to an external cause is 

based on the criteria that the failure was not the result of an inherent flaw in the facility but was sudden, caused a disastrous impact 

on transportation services, and resulted in unusually high expenses 

to the highway agency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,900,000,000 for the Emergency 

Relief program. The recommended funding level is in addition to 

the $100,000,000 provided to this program each year under the current law. The Emergency Relief program carries a backlog of 

$1,132,588,905 in eligible expenses, and damage from Hurricane 

Irene and flooding in the Midwest have added significantly to the 

amount of disaster-related expenses eligible for funding under the 

program. Aside from the program’s annual funding level of 

$100,000,000, no funds were provided for this program in fiscal 

year 2011 or requested by the administration. The Committee recommends that funding provided under this heading be designated 

as being for disaster relief under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. 

The bill includes several provisions that would apply to events 

occurring in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. For those events, the bill 

would allow the Department to reimburse a State for damages related to a single disaster in an amount that exceeds the program’s 

limitation of $100,000,000. The bill would also allow the Secretary 

to provide up to 100 percent of a project’s eligible expenses for a 

State that has incurred disaster-related costs equal to at least 

twice the State’s apportionment of highway formula grants for that 

year. These two provisions will help States that have suffered from 

unusually large events, and sustained damages whose costs are 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

49 

disproportionate to the level of transportation spending which the 

State could afford. 

In addition, for events occurring in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, 

the bill includes language that would extend the period of time 

during which the Department can provide immediate relief and restore essential transportation services without requiring a local 

match of funds. Under current law, such assistance is limited to 

180 days following the onset of a disaster. This provision, however, 

will help States that have experienced long-term flooding or other 

disasters that continue over a long period of time. Because the 180- 

day period begins at the beginning of a disaster, States will not be 

able to benefit from this part of the program if the disaster itself 

prevents them from beginning their work to assess damages and 

estimate the cost of immediate repair work. 

RESCISSION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $73,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a rescission of $73,000,000 of funds 

provided for specific highway projects in prior year appropriation 

acts. The administration did not include this provision in its budget 

request. A similar rescission of funding dedicated for specific highway projects was included in the year-long continuing resolution 

for fiscal year 2011; however, that rescission applied to contract authority provided through authorization acts. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Section 120 distributes obligation authority among Federal-aid 

Highway programs. 

Section 121 continues a provision that credits funds received by 

the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the Federal-aid highways account. 

Section 122 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy American requirements. 

Section 123 continues a provision prohibiting tolling in Texas, 

with exceptions. 

Section 124 provides additional funding from FHWA’s research 

program for data activities at the Bureau of Transportation, including the safety data program, improvements to the commodity flow 

survey, and the international freight data system. 

Section 125 addresses requirements for highway guardrails. 

Section 126 modifies requirements under section 127 of title 23, 

United States Code. 

Section 127 restores contract authority for FHWA’s administrative expenses. 

Section 128 exempts roads and bridges affected by a natural disaster from certain environmental and planning requirements. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

50 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] was 

established within the Department of Transportation by the Motor 

Carrier Safety Improvement Act [MCSIA] (Public Law 106–159) in 

December 1999. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier safety responsibilities were under the jurisdiction of the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

FMCSA’s mission is to promote safe commercial motor vehicle 

and motor coach operations, as well as reduce the number and severity of accidents. Agency resources and activities prevent and 

mitigate commercial motor vehicle and motor coach accidents 

through education, regulation, enforcement, stakeholder training, 

technological innovation and improved information systems. 

FMCSA is also responsible for ensuring that all commercial vehicles entering the United States along its southern and northern 

borders comply with all Federal motor carrier safety and hazardous 

materials regulations. To accomplish these activities, FMCSA 

works with Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies, the 

motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and the public. 

MCSIA and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU] provide 

funding authorization for FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs and Motor Carrier Safety Grants. As the current authorization expires March 31, 2012, the Committee recommendation is contingent on a full-year authorization. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total level of $558,023,000 for obligations and liquidations from the Highway Trust Fund. This level 

is $47,977,000 less than the request and $2,953,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted level. This level allows the FMCSA to utilize the authorized level of contract authority provided under 

SAFETEA–LU plus $5,878,000 in unobligated carry over contract 

authority for agency operations. 

FMCSA is responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing regulations for the motor carrier and motor coach industry to 

ensure that qualified drivers and safe vehicles are operating on our 

Nation’s highways. By effectively carrying out its responsibilities, 

the agency provides industry with appropriate guidance and oversight to ensure both the efficient movement of goods and people as 

well as the safety of the driving public. 

For the past 3 years, the Committee has voiced frustration with 

FMCSA’s repeated failure to timely address recommendations by 

the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], the Department 

of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General [OIG], and the Government Accountability Office [GAO]. For example, NTSB has 55 

open recommendations affecting the FMCSA and continues to rate 

the agency’s response as unacceptable in addressing the improvement of the collection and maintenance of data on hours of service, 

the mandatory use of electronic on-board recorders, the identification of the reincarnated carriers, and the agency’s ability to prevent 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

51 

operators from providing services if they have serious safety violations for mechanical failures or unqualified drivers. While OIG 

open recommendations have decreased from 22 to 18 over the last 

year, concerns remain with FMCSA’s ability to counter fraud in the 

Commercial Driver’s License Program, properly vet new entrants to 

prevent the reincarnation of passenger and household goods carriers, prevent fraud among household goods carriers, and reform its 

contracting and acquisition tools. 

The FMCSA is undertaking a multilateral approach to addressing many of these long-standing and serious safety issues, but virtually all programmatic, regulatory and enforcement solutions remain a work in progress. The lack of a multi-year surface transportation reauthorization bill, combined with the constraints in domestic discretionary spending, inhibits the agency’s ability to strengthen programs, develop regulations, improve information technology 

systems, and target enforcement efforts on emerging highway safety initiatives that could significantly improve road and passenger 

safety. However, FMCSA leadership has demonstrated a commitment to addressing the many safety recommendations, while also 

providing industry ample opportunity for constructive feedback 

that aligns with national safety objectives. The Committee believes 

that FMCSA has the opportunity to generate further reductions in 

large truck and bus fatalities and injuries this year by addressing 

its many outstanding recommendations, and expects the agency to 

seize this opportunity. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2011 ..................................................................................... $245,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 (limitation) ....................................................... 276,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 250,023,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources to support motor 

carrier safety program activities and maintain the agency’s administrative infrastructure. Funding supports nationwide motor carrier 

safety and consumer enforcement efforts, including Federal safety 

enforcement activities at the United States/Mexico border to ensure 

that Mexican carriers entering the United States are in compliance 

with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Resources are also 

provided to fund motor carrier regulatory development and implementation, information management, research and technology, 

safety education and outreach, and the 24-hour safety and consumer telephone hotline. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization of 

$250,023,000 for FMCSA’s Operations and Programs. The recrfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

52 

ommendation is $5,023,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $25,977,000 less than the budget request. 

OPERATING EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $194,217,000 for operating expenses. This level is $5,995,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $40,367,000 less than the budget request. 

Comprehensive Safety Analysis [CSA].—Over the past 7 years, 

FMCSA has been undertaking a comprehensive evaluation and 

overhaul of its systems and operations. The CSA initiative is designed to improve the effectiveness of the agency’s compliance and 

enforcement programs. The accompanying chart identifies the 

major milestones attributed to the development and implementation of CSA. The Committee strongly supports the agency’s efforts 

to improve its programs, and remains focused on ensuring CSA delivers the promised results. The Committee appreciates that the 

agency has taken steps to communicate the changes and benefits 

of CSA to its partners and stakeholders. Given that FMCSA relies 

on its partners in the field to assist them in fulfilling its mission, 

continued communication with and training of its partners will be 

critical to the initiative’s success. 

The Committee is concerned with FMCSA’s failure to meet critical milestones for implementing this new system. For example, the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to the safety fitness determination rating system has been delayed yet again from October 

2009 to December 2011. Until the rulemaking is complete, FMCSA 

is relying on the current rating system that fails to place a sufficient emphasis on both driver and vehicle qualifications, thereby 

compromising safety on our Nation’s highways. This rulemaking 

will be subject to great scrutiny, which is likely to require a significant amount of time. Continued delays in the rulemaking will 

delay the potential safety benefits that CSA has to offer. The Committee expects FMCSA to meet its new target date of December 

2011. 

The Committee requests that GAO continue to monitor the implementation of CSA and evaluate FMCSA’s ability to meet its designated milestones. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

53 

CSA MILESTONES, 2009–2012 

2009 2010 2011 2012 

August: 

—Final report on measurement methodology (Complete). —SFD final report (Complete). 

September: 

—Establish protocols for program evaluation data 

collection (Complete). 

—Define interventions for BASICs of: (1) Driver Fitness, (2) Controlled Substances/Alcohol; (3) Improper loading/cargo securement; and (4) Crash 

History (Complete). 

—Develop policy, guidance and aids for interventions, Phase II (Complete). —Document intervention selection guidance for 

Phase II BASICs (Complete). 

—Deliver refined concept of operations for Phase II 

(Complete). 

—Deliver training for Phase II (Complete). —Initiate Phase II of operational model test (Complete). —paper (Completed November 2007). 

November: 

—Deliver final rulemaking support. 

December: 

—Annual public listening session webcasts/reportout (Completed). 

February: 

—Deliver refined concept of operations for 

broader implementation (Complete). 

March: 

—Identify and summarize requirements for 

broader implementation (Complete). 

April: 

—Initiate motor carrier data preview of violations by BASIC (Complete). 

July: 

—End of Operational Model Test, CSA 2010 

now operational in 9 States (Complete). 

August: 

—Carriers can view BASIC scores (Complete). 

December: 

—Deployed Phase 1 of CSA 2010 and 

changed it to Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA): 

—Includes Field Operations Training Manual 

(FOTM) Addendum for CSA (Complete). 

—Includes new Safety Measurement System 

(SMS) (Complete). 

—Includes Focused Compliance Review, Full 

Compliance Review, Direct Notice of Violation (Complete). 

—Includes Warning Letters. (Incomplete) 

February: 

—Began sending Warning Letters (Complete). 

March: 

—FMCSA reached a settlement agreement 

with the National Association of Small Trucking Companies and implemented agreed changes to the SMS public website (Complete). 

July/August: 

—Begin CSA Phase 2 training, training the 

Safety Management Cycle to field Safety Investigators (moves Focused and Full Compliance Reviews to Onsite Focused and Onsite Comprehensive Investigations) (Underway) 

—Deliver final University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) Evaluation of the CSA 2010 Operational Model 

test. (lncomplete). 

December: 

—Publish NPRM on Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) (Incomplete). 1

July: 

—Deploy remaining IT tools for Final CSA 

Phase 3 deployment: 

—Includes Deployment of SENTRI and final 

enhancements to the FMCSA PORTAL (Incomplete). 

—Develop Phase 3 Training material and 

train instructors (Incomplete). 

October/November: 

—Begin training field investigators on Phase 

3: 

—Includes IT systems deployment (Incomplete). —Includes Offsite Interventions and Cooperative Safety Plan deployment (Incomplete). 

December: 

—Full CSA Enforcement Model Deployed, 

begin year long Implementation/Monitoring of Enforcement Model (Incomplete). 

—Begin to identify and develop performance 

measures through process analysis (process will take approximately 12 months) (Incomplete). 

1 Original completion date scheduled for November 2008. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

54 

Hours of Service.—For more than 30 years, NTSB has advocated 

regulations that address driver fatigue. FMCSA’s prior regulatory 

action on this long-standing safety recommendation is concerning. 

According to NTSB, driver fatigue remains the primary factor in 30 

to 40 percent of large truck crashes involving fatalities. NTSB recommended using science-based principals to revise the hours-ofservice rule to require at least 8 hours of continuous sleep and the 

elimination of sleeper berth provisions that allow for the splitting 

of sleep periods. After regulatory actions on the motor carrier 

hours-of-service rule were challenged and struck down by the 

courts, FMCSA agreed to present a new regulatory action to OMB 

by July 26, 2010, and to complete a final rulemaking by July 26, 

2011. The court-ordered deadline for final agency action was extended to October 26, 2011, to allow time for the publication of and 

comment on four additional research documents. The Committee 

supports FMCSA’s efforts to conduct a full, open, and transparent 

regulatory process that discloses its operator fatigue model methodology, considers the health impact on drivers, develops policies 

based upon sound sleep and fatigue scientific research, and properly considers safety and crash-related data. However, the Committee expects FMCSA to fulfill its highway safety mission, revise 

the hours-of-service regulations, and protect the Nation’s traveling 

public in accordance with the timelines established in the settlement agreement. 

Electronic On-board Recorders.—No hours-of-service rule will 

serve its purpose unless it is adequately enforced. In 1977, NTSB 

issued its first recommendation on the use of on-board recording 

devices for commercial vehicles to provide an efficient and reliable 

means of tracking the number of hours a commercial motor vehicle 

operator drives. NTSB subsequently issued additional recommendations concerning the use of on-board recorders. In 2008, 

NTSB added to its Most Wanted List a recommendation that 

FMCSA require electronic on-board data recorders [EOBRs] to 

maintain accurate carrier records of drivers’ hours-of-service. Despite FMCSA’s recent final rulemaking requiring a limited use of 

EOBRs to carriers with the most serious safety violations, this recommendation remains ‘‘open unacceptable’’. The Committee supports FMCSA’s commitment to issue a broader EOBR mandate and 

encourages FMCSA to expand EOBR usage for interstate commercial vehicles. 

High-risk Carriers.—Since fiscal year 2008, the Committee has 

required quarterly reports on the agency’s ability to meet the requirement to conduct compliance reviews on all motor carriers 

identified as high-risk. Since the agency first began reporting its 

performance to the Committee, the agency’s ability to comply with 

this requirement has improved significantly, from completing compliance reviews of 69 percent of high-risk carriers in fiscal year 

2008 to 86 percent last year. However, the backlog of open reviews 

has increased from 1,084 carriers in fiscal year 2008 to 1,336 carriers at the end of the 2010 calendar year. The Committee is concerned with the increase of open reviews and expects the agency 

to continue to make strides to fulfill its mandate. The Committee 

directs the agency to continue to provide the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations with a report on its ability to meet 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

55 

its requirements to evaluate high-risk carriers on March 30, 2012 

and September 30, 2012. 

Reincarnated Carriers.—The Committee continues to have concerns with FMCSA’s ability to detect and prevent unscrupulous 

motor carrier or motorcoach operators from evading enforcement 

actions or out-of-service orders by going out of business and reincorporating as a ‘‘new’’ transportation service provider. A recent 

GAO report found that 9 percent of motor carriers placed out of 

service by FMCSA between 2007 and 2008 applied as new entrants. GAO found that after reincorporating, many of these companies continued to demonstrate a pattern of violations, including 

breeches of drug and alcohol testing and driver qualifications rules, 

operating without proper authority, and illegally transporting passengers across the United States-Mexico border. GAO and the OIG 

are currently conducting investigations mandated by the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations into the effectiveness of 

FMCSA’s new-entry safety audit, the New Applicant Screening 

Program and the Passenger Carrier Vetting Process. Further, GAO 

is evaluating the degree to which the complexities of State laws on 

corporate successorship affect FMCSA’s ability to deny operating 

authority or pursue enforcement actions against unsafe reincarnated carriers. The Committee expects FMCSA to fully cooperate 

with current investigations. Further, the Committee encourages 

FMCSA to apply the strictest of enforcement actions against these 

corrupt operators. 

Motorcoach Safety.—Many high profile and traumatic motorcoach 

accidents have occurred in the past year. In March alone, a bus 

traveling on I–95 toward New York City swerved, rolled over, and 

struck a guardrail cutting the bus in half, killing 15 people and injuring another 18; in East Brunswick, New Jersey, a bus crashed 

into a guard rail, killing two and injuring 40; and in Littleton, New 

Hampshire, a bus swerved off the road and overturned, injuring all 

25 occupants on board. On May 31, a bus ran off the road and overturned on I–95 near Doswell, Virginia, causing four fatalities and 

numerous injuries. These incidents are a tragic reminder of the disproportionate effect bus accidents have on passengers and the occupants of other vehicles traveling on our roadways. 

The Committee commends the Secretary for taking a comprehensive approach to addressing motorcoach safety issues by developing 

a Motorcoach Safety Action Plan that tasks modal administrators 

with specific action items to rectify the troubling increase in motorcoach fatalities over the past decade. This pattern is inconsistent 

with other highway fatality trends in vehicle and motor carrier sectors, pointing to a long-standing weakness in passenger safety 

oversight and enforcement authority. The Committee directs 

FMCSA to develop an annual report on the agency’s progress in 

implementing the action items within the Secretary’s Motorcoach 

Safety Action Plan, the recommendations of the NTSB, the OIG 

and GAO with respect to this issue, as well as any additional information the Administrator deems appropriate, in its annual budget 

submission to Congress. 

ADA Compliance.—For several years, this Committee has pushed 

FMCSA to enforce DOT’s own Americans with Disability Act [ADA] 

regulations for over-the-road curbside operators. Congress had to 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

56 

pass a law to compel the agency to accept its responsibility to deny 

or revoke operating authority based on an operator’s inability or 

unwillingness to meet DOT’s ADA regulations. However, to date, 

FMCSA has taken few enforcement actions related to ADA noncompliance. The Committee once again directs FMCSA to include 

information in its budget for fiscal year 2013 on enforcement actions the agency has taken, including the number of denials or revocations due to noncompliance with ADA regulations. The Committee expects the information to demonstrate that FMCSA takes 

its responsibility to enforce DOT’s ADA regulations seriously. 

PROGRAM EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $56,778,000 for FMCSA’s program 

expenses. This amount is equal to the enacted level for fiscal year 

2011 and $15,362,000 more than the budget request. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Liquidation of 

contract authorization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriations, 2011 .................................................................................................. $310,070,000 $310,070,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ............................................................................................... 330,000,000 330,000,000 

Committee recommendation ....................................................................................... 307,000,000 307,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources for Federal grants 

to support State compliance, enforcement, and other programs. 

Grants are also provided to States for enforcement efforts at both 

the southern and northern borders to ensure that all points of 

entry into the United States are fortified with comprehensive safety measures; improvement of State commercial driver’s license 

[CDL] oversight activities to prevent unqualified drivers from being 

issued CDLs; and the Performance Registration Information Systems and Management [PRISM] program, which links State motor 

vehicle registration systems with carrier safety data in order to 

identify unsafe commercial motor carriers. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$308,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended 

limitation is $2,070,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level 

and the budget request. The Committee recommends a separate 

limitation on obligations for each grant program funded under this 

account with the funding allocation identified below. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

57 

Amount 

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP] ....................................................................................... $212,000,000 

Commercial Driver’s License and Driver Improvement Program ................................................................... 30,000,000 

Border Enforcement Grants ............................................................................................................................ 32,000,000 

Performance and Registration Information System Management [PRISM] grants ....................................... 5,000,000 

Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks [CVISN] grants ..................................................... 25,000,000 

Safety Data Improvement .............................................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks [CVISN] 

Grants Program.—The Committee finds that FMCSA has failed to 

maintain appropriate oversight of the CVISN grant program, resulting in financial irregularities and the award of grants to States 

beyond the agency’s statutory authority. Last year, after these financial irregularities were discovered by the current Administrator, the Committee directed GAO to conduct an audit of the program. GAO found that FMCSA committed 47 statutory violations 

between fiscal years 2006 through 2010, totaling $23,000,000. This 

represents 18 percent of the $125,000,000 in total contract authority available for the CVISN program during such period. GAO concluded the violations were due to the agency’s failure to keep track 

of the grants awarded under the Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century [TEA–21] and the dissemination of an erroneous policy to States in November 2006. These findings indicate a failure 

to adhere to internal grant management policies and processes, 

raising questions about the integrity of this and other State assistance programs. Thus far, FMCSA is taking the appropriate and 

necessary steps to address the historical mismanagement of the 

CVISN program. Several States have chosen to deobligate the inappropriately awarded funds. Other States either do not have sufficient funds to deobligate or are otherwise inclined not to do so. 

Therefore, the Committee has included bill language to hold States 

harmless for the Federal mismanagement of the program. The 

Committee also recommends an equal amount of funds for rescission from the CVISN program to offset the budgetary costs of the 

legislative relief provided under section 136. 

GAO is conducting an audit of other FMCSA grant programs to 

determine if the management issues related to the CVISN program 

were isolated. GAO will be examining how FMCSA oversees and 

monitors the award of grant funds, to what extent risk factors exist 

that could lead to financial irregularities in the awarding of grants, 

and what action FMCSA can take or has taken to prevent such 

irregularities from occurring in the future. This work will better inform the Committee on the potential benefits of FMCSA’s proposal 

to create a centralized Grants Management Office to act as a single 

point of contact for all business-related activities associated with 

the award, negotiation, and administration of grants. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

ADMNINSTRATION

Section 130 subjects the funds in this act to section 350 of Public 

Law 107–87 in order to ensure the safety of all cross-border long 

haul operations conducted by Mexican-domiciled commercial carriers. 

The North American Free Trade Agreement requires that the 

United States and Mexico provide operating authority and reciprfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

58 

rocal treatment for bus companies to provide domestic, intercity 

bus service and cross-border services. Mexico has refused to grant 

United States-owned bus companies comparable rights in Mexico, 

thus making it impossible for United States bus companies to compete with Mexican bus companies for cross-border traffic. Congress 

gave the President or his delegate the statutory authority (49 

U.S.C. §13902(c)) to suspend or restrict the U.S. operations of passenger motor carriers owned by companies of a contiguous country 

which unreasonably restricts the operations of U.S.-owned companies. Since those circumstances currently exist, the Committee believes that the President or his delegate should consider utilizing 

that authority unless Mexico immediately starts to provide reciprocal access and fair treatment to United States-owned bus companies. Discrimination against U.S. bus companies cannot continue. 

The Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the United States Trade Representative, to report to 

the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations no later than 

April 1, 2012 on what actions the Department or other executive 

agencies are taking to rectify this issue. 

Section 131 holds States harmless for FMCSA anti-deficiency act 

violations that occurred between fiscal years 2006 through 2010. 

The Committee rescinds $1,000,000 in prior year unobligated balances to offset the budgetary impact of this provision. 

Section 132 prohibits recipients of funds made available in this 

act to release personal information, including a Social Security 

number, medical or disability information, and photographs from a 

driver’s license or motor vehicle record without express consent of 

the person to whom such information pertains; and prohibits the 

Secretary of Transportation from withholding funds provided in 

this act for any grantee if a State is in noncompliance with this 

provision. 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Government’s regulatory role in motor vehicle and 

highway safety began in September of 1966 with the enactment of 

the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the 

Highway Safety Act of 1966. In October 1966, these activities, 

originally under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, 

were transferred to the Department of Transportation to be carried 

out through the National Traffic Safety Bureau within the Federal 

Highway Administration. In March 1970, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation. 

NHTSA is responsible for motor vehicle safety, highway safety 

behavioral programs, motor vehicle information, and automobile 

fuel economy programs. NHTSA’s current programs are authorized 

in five major laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code [U.S.C.]; (2) the 

Highway Safety Act (chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor 

Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act [MVICSA] (part C of 

subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.); the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation [TREAD] Act; and (5) the 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

59 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU]. 

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides for the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for 

vehicles and related equipment and the conduct of supporting research. 

The Highway Safety Act of 1966 established NHTSA’s responsibility for providing States with financial assistance to support coordinated national highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, 

U.S.C.), as well its role in highway safety research, development, 

and demonstration programs (section 403 of title 23, U.S.C.). The 

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–690) authorized 

NHTSA to make grants to States to implement and enforce drunk 

driving prevention programs. 

The MVICSA established NHTSA’s responsibilities for developing 

low-speed collision bumper standards and odometer regulations, as 

well its consumer information activities. Subsequent amendments 

to this law established the agency’s responsibility for administering 

mandatory automotive fuel economy standards, theft prevention 

standards for high theft lines of passenger motor vehicles, and 

automobile content labeling requirements. 

In 2000, the TREAD Act expanded NHTSA’s responsibilities further, requiring the agency to promulgate regulations for the stability of light duty vehicles, tire safety and labeling standards, improving the safety of child restraints, and establishing a child restraint safety rating consumer information program. 

SAFETEA–LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, established support for NHTSA’s high-visibility enforcement efforts, motorcycle safety grants, and child safety and child booster safety incentive grant programs. Finally, SAFETEA–LU adopted new motor 

vehicle safety and information provisions, including rulemaking directions to reduce vehicle rollover crashes and vehicle passenger 

ejections, and improve passenger safety in side impact crashes. 

SAFETEA–LU expired on September 30, 2009. Congress has not 

yet completed work on a long-term reauthorization bill for the surface transportation programs. At present, Congress has extended 

the surface transportation programs through March 31, 2012. In 

the absence of a long-term reauthorization of surface transportation programs, the Committee has generally assumed the continuation of the current program structure and that funding levels 

will be extended and annualized for the 2012 fiscal year. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

In 2010, the number of overall traffic fatalities reached the lowest level since 1949, declining for the 19th consecutive quarter. In 

2010, 32,788 people were killed on our roadways, a 3 percent decrease from 2009 and a 24 percent decrease from 2005. While the 

trend in reduced highway fatalities is significant and encouraging, 

the agency and its State partners must remain diligent to sustain 

these gains as the economy recovers and discretionary travel begins 

to increase. The Committee recommends $799,974,000 for NHTSA 

to maintain current programs and continue its mission to save 

lives, prevent injuries, and reduce vehicle-related crashes. This 

level includes both budget authority and limitations on the obligarfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

60 

tion of contract authority. This funding is $60,026,000 less than the 

President’s request and $72,515,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 

enacted level. 

The following table summarizes Committee recommendations, 

excluding rescissions: 

Program 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2011 enacted 2012 estimate 

Operations and Research .......................................................................... $245,646,000 $303,900,000 $249,646,000 

National Driver Register ............................................................................ 7,343,000 ........................ ........................

Highway Traffic Safety Grants ................................................................... 619,500,000 556,100,000 550,328,000 

Total .............................................................................................. 872,489,000 860,000,000 799,974,000 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $245,646,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 303,900,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 249,646,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These programs support traffic safety programs and related research, demonstrations, technical assistance, and national leadership for highway safety programs conducted by State and local governments, the private sector, universities, research units, and various safety associations and organizations. These highway safety 

programs emphasize alcohol and drug countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law enforcement, emergency medical and 

trauma care systems, traffic records and licensing, State and community traffic safety evaluations, protection of motorcycle riders, 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety, pupil transportation, distracted and 

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

This account also provides funding to implement and operate the 

Problem Driver Pointer System [PDPS] and to improve traffic safety by assisting State motor vehicle administrators in communicating effectively and efficiently with other States to identify 

drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked for serious 

traffic offenses, such as driving under the influence of alcohol or 

other drugs. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $249,646,000 for Operations and Research and has aligned funding for the National Driver Register 

into this account. This level of funding is $54,254,000 less than the 

President’s budget request and $3,343,000 less than the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level. Of the total amount recommended for Operations and Research, $140,146,000 is derived from the General 

Fund and $109,500,000 is derived from the Highway Trust Fund, 

of which $4,000,000 is for the National Driver Register. 

Alcohol-related Fatalities.—Alcohol-impaired driving deaths continue to be a leading cause of highway fatalities. Although the 

number of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities has dropped recently, 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

61 

they continue to represent 32 percent of all highway deaths. Alcohol ignition interlock systems hold great promise for reducing alcohol-related fatalities. However, ignition interlock systems are an intrusive technology, which limits their use. 

In 2008, NHTSA partnered with leading automobile manufacturers in the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety [ACTS] to develop alcohol detection technologies that could be installed in vehicles to prevent drunk driving. These technologies need to be nonintrusive in order to achieve greater acceptance by the general public. The development of advanced alcohol detection technologies is 

one of the key components of the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk 

Driving, which unites Mothers Against Drunk Driving, major auto 

manufacturers, law enforcement, and other stakeholders who share 

the goal of eliminating drunk driving. 

To date, NHTSA and ACTS have completed preliminary device 

performance specifications, a rigorous technical review of candidate 

technologies, and proof-of-concept research to investigate those 

technologies that hold the most promise. Funding for fiscal year 

2012 will be used to test the full set of performance specifications 

and to begin integrating competing technologies into a research vehicle for further testing and evaluation. The Committee recommends a total of $6,000,000 to support this collaboration in fiscal year 2012, $5,000,000 of which is repurposed from the seat belt 

performance grant program. This level of funding is $5,000,000 

more than the budget request and $4,500,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level. 

Safety Defects Investigation.—The Safety Defects Investigation 

program investigates possible defect trends and, where appropriate, 

seeks recalls of vehicles and vehicle equipment that pose an unreasonable safety risk. To perform this mission, NHTSA maintains the 

collection of early warning reporting data submitted by manufacturers to the Advanced Retrieval Tire, Equipment, Motor Vehicle 

Information System [ARTEMIS], as well as complaints from vehicle 

owners, recalls and investigations. The agency then analyzes the 

early warning data to determine whether anomalies or trends exist 

that potentially indicate the presence of a safety-related problem. 

Since 2000, NHTSA has influenced, on average, the recall of nearly 

10 million vehicles annually as well as the recall of millions of 

items of equipment for safety-related defects. As a result of the 

Toyota recalls for sudden unintended acceleration, Congress made 

it clear that NHTSA should enhance the accessibility of its vehicle 

safety data systems. The Committee provides $10,661,000, as requested, to allow NHTSA to make the necessary modifications to 

its complaint and investigation database, Web site, and outreach 

efforts. 

Alternative Fuels Vehicle Research.—Consistent with the budget 

request, funding for alternative fuels research is reduced from 

$4,498,000 in fiscal year 2011 to $1,500,000. This level of funding 

will be used to continue research on the safety of emerging hybrid 

and electric fuel cell technologies, particularly on lithium ion battery and plug-in electric vehicles. This continued research is an important step in ensuring that vehicles powered by alternative 

sources of energy do not compromise safety. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

62 

National Automotive Sampling System [NASS].—The Committee 

provides $25,000,000 to fully fund modernization of the NASS data 

collection system, which provides crash data on a nationally representative sample of police-reported motor vehicle crashes and related injuries. This funding is available until expended which is 

repurposed from the seat belt performance grant program. The Institute for Highway Safety states that NASS provides a ‘‘vital 

means of understanding injury mechanisms and identifying ways 

to improve crashworthiness and restraint system performance’’. 

Safety researchers and automobile manufacturers also recognize 

the current NASS sample design created in 1977 is outdated, as 

data needs and demographics have changed significantly. Furthermore, the current sample size is not large enough to identify trends 

or problems at the vehicle make/model level in a timely manner. 

The Committee believes it is important for NHTSA to expand the 

scope of its data collection relative to the NASS/Crashworthiness 

Data System [CDS]. Expanding the NASS data collection from its 

current 24 data collection sites will assure a larger and more representative sample of crashes, increase the precision with which 

the agency can determine and validate areas of specific rulemaking 

interest for the Office of Defects Investigation, and assist researchers around the world in making informed decisions on vehicle design and safety policy. 

NHTSA must also undertake a comprehensive review of the data 

elements to be collected from each crash; solicit input from interested parties—including suppliers, automakers, safety advocates, 

the medical community and research organizations; and assess the 

need for more data from the pre-crash, crash, and post-crash 

phases. The agency should consider including the following factors 

as part of an enhanced data collection initiative: vehicle velocities; 

vehicle acceleration/deceleration; departure from the roadway; presence of crash avoidance or driver assistance systems in the vehicle(s); and road surfaces and conditions. The funding provided will 

allow NHTSA to modernize the NASS system to improve data quality, timeliness, and accessibility in responding to the rapidly changing vehicle and highway safety environment. The Committee directs NHTSA to report on its NASS modernization efforts and related expenditures in the President’s annual budget submission to 

Congress. Additionally, NHTSA shall provide a report on the results of the data element review and recommendations for revision. 

Motorcoach Safety.—The Committee commends the Secretary for 

taking a comprehensive approach to assessing and addressing motorcoach safety issues. Specifically, the Committee appreciates the 

development of specific action items for modal administrators to 

rectify the troubling increase in the number of motorcoach fatalities over the past 10 years. This trend is inconsistent with other 

highway fatality trends in vehicle and motor carrier sectors, which 

points to a long-standing weakness in passenger safety oversight 

and enforcement authority. The Secretary’s Motorcoach Safety Action Plan requires NHTSA to develop performance requirements for 

stability control systems and to expand research on crash-avoidance technologies, such as forward crash warning, lane departure 

warning systems, and crash imminent braking. NHTSA is also taking actions to address NTSB recommendations on occupant protecrfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

63 

tion systems, emergency egress, and flammability standards. The 

Committee directs NHTSA to report on its progress in meeting the 

action items identified above in its annual budget submission to 

Congress. 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard [CAFE].—NHTSA is 

responsible for setting fuel economy standards for cars and trucks 

sold in the United States to reduce energy consumption. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] is responsible for 

calculating the average fuel economy for each manufacturer. The 

President has directed both agencies to align their research, performance requirements, and regulatory framework to develop a coordinated national program that achieves the requirements of the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the Clean Air 

Act. The Committee recommends $7,900,000 for fiscal year 2012 for 

this initiative, as requested. Funding will be used to support the 

regulatory requirements for model years 2017 and beyond, allow 

the agency to implement fuel economy standards for medium and 

heavy duty trucks, and conduct a retrospective analysis of the accuracy of fuel economy projections per GAO’s recommendation. 

The Committee commends the Department for finalizing the first 

ever fuel economy standards for large pickup trucks and commercial vans ahead of the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act (Public Law 

110–140) deadline. The Committee agrees with the Final Rule’s 

statement that ‘‘a consumer label can play an important role in reducing fuel consumption and GHG emissions.’’ The Committee commends the Department for expressing its intent to create fuel economy labels for large pickup trucks and commercial vans, and it directs the Department to prioritize this rulemaking in order to label 

vehicles within 3 model years. The Committee also encourages the 

Department to provide information on the fuel economy of large 

pickup trucks and commercial vans on fueleconomy.gov while the 

labeling regulation is being drafted. 

Unsecured Loads.—The Committee is concerned about the highway safety risks associated with passenger vehicles that do not 

properly secure personal property or equipment in transit on our 

Nation’s highways. Preliminary data suggests that, on average, 

falling debris causes more than 300 fatalities each year. Further, 

State laws regarding willful and knowing violations of improper 

loading are varied and weakly enforced, regardless of the potential 

harm to innocent travelers. The Committee directs GAO to report 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the various State laws, associated penalties, exemptions, and enforcement 

actions regarding unsecured loads by July 1, 2012. Further, the 

Committee directs NHTSA to collect and classify data resulting 

from automobile accidents involving road debris in a manner that 

would distinguish road obstructions resulting from human error, 

such as an unsecured load, and those caused by natural elements, 

such as a fallen tree. 

Child Hyperthermia Prevention.—The Committee commends 

NHTSA’s leadership in increasing public awareness of the risks of 

death and serious injury to children from hyperthermia when left 

unattended in vehicles. The Committee supports the agency’s plan 

to undertake a broader coordinated national campaign for the 

warm weather season in 2012, along the lines of the successful efrfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

64 

forts more than a decade ago that changed the culture by convincing more parents and caregivers to place children 12 years of 

age and younger in safer rear seats. A similar effort to prevent 

hyperthermia deaths is certainly justified as there have been more 

than 500 of these deaths in vehicles since 1998, an average of 38 

per year and rising. 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of 

contract 

authorization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriations, 2011 1 ........................................................................................................ $619,500,000 $619,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................................................... 556,100,000 556,100,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 550,328,000 550,328,000 

1 Excluding rescission. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

SAFETEA–LU reauthorized three State grant programs: highway safety programs, occupant protection incentive grants, and alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants. It also 

authorized for the first time an additional five State programs: 

safety belt performance grants, State traffic safety information systems improvement grants, high-visibility enforcement program, 

child safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants, and motorcyclist safety grants. 

SAFETEA–LU established a new safety belt performance incentive grant program under section 406 of title 23, United States 

Code; established a new State traffic safety information system improvement program grant program under section 408 of title 23, 

United States Code; amended the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grant program authorized by section 410 of title 

23, United States Code; established a new program to administer 

at least two high-visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns each year to achieve one or both of the following objectives: 

(1) reduce alcohol- or drug-impaired operation of motor vehicles; 

and/or (2) increase the use of safety belts by occupants of motor vehicles. 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$550,328,000 for the highway traffic safety grant programs funded 

under this heading. The recommendation limitation is $5,772,000 

less than the budget estimate and $69,172,000 less than the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level. The Committee has also provided the authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization. 

The Committee continues to recommend prohibiting the use of 

section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

65 

costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for State, local, or private buildings or structures. 

The Committee terminates the quarterly reporting requirement 

on implementation of primary seat belt laws pursuant to Senate 

Report 110–131. 

The Committee recommends a separate limitation on obligations 

for administrative expenses and for each grant program as follows: 

Amount 

Highway Safety Programs (section 402) ............................................................................................................. $235,000,000 

Occupant Protection Incentive Grants (section 405) .......................................................................................... 25,000,000 

Safety Belt Performance Grants (section 406) .................................................................................................... 38,500,000 

Distracted Driver Incentive Grants ...................................................................................................................... 10,000,000 

State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grants (section 408) ..................................................... 34,500,000 

Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grants (section 410) ...................................................... 139,000,000 

Motorcyclist Safety Grants (section 2010) .......................................................................................................... 7,000,000 

Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive Grants (section 2011) ................................................... 7,000,000 

High Visibility Enforcement Program (section 2009) .......................................................................................... 29,000,000 

Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 25,328,000 

Distracted Driver.—In 2009, 5,474 people were killed and an estimated 448,000 were injured nationwide in crashes that were reported to have involved a distracted driver. Distracted driving encompasses a wide range of behaviors that take the driver’s attention from his or her primary driving responsibilities. While there 

is no definitive data as to how many distracted driving deaths and 

injuries are caused by cell phone use and texting, 20 percent of the 

drivers involved in fatal accidents in 2009 were either using or in 

the presence of a cell phone at the time of the crash, and there is 

reason to be concerned about whether the recent rise in distracted 

driving fatalities is linked to the increasing use of electronic devices. The Committee commends the Secretary’s strong leadership 

on this emerging safety concern across all modes of transportation, 

and supports establishing a voluntary incentive grant program for 

States to encourage the enactment and enforcement of laws to prevent distracted driving. The Committee has included bill language 

to reallocate $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2012 from the seat belt performance grant program to fund a new distracted driving grant 

program for States that enact and enforce laws to prevent distracted driving with a focus on texting bans. The Committee has 

also included language to set aside $5,000,000 of the $10,000,000 

for the development, production, and use of broadcast and print 

media advertising to support enforcement of State laws to prevent 

distracted driving. The Committee directs NHTSA and the Centers 

for Disease Control [CDC] to conduct an analysis of available research, and to report on the extent to which electronic devices can 

be causally linked to the reported rise in fatal accidents or injuries 

involving distracted driving, as well as the impact distracted driving prevention laws and enforcement actions can have on motorist 

behavior. 

Motorcycle Safety.—Motorcycle safety grants may be used to encourage States to adopt and implement effective programs to reduce the number of crashes involving motorcycles. A State may 

also use these funds for motorcycle safety training and motorcyclist 

awareness programs, including the improvement of training currfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

66 

ricula, delivery of training, recruitment or retention of motorcyclist 

safety instructors, and public awareness and outreach programs. 

From 1997 to 2009, motorcycle fatalities increased more than 110 

percent, with 2008 the deadliest year on record with 5,312 fatalities. According a recent CDC report on motorcycle safety, ‘‘the economic burden of injuries and deaths from motorcycle-related crashes in 1 year totaled $12 billion’’ and ‘‘a substantial proportion of 

costs are paid by the U.S. public due to higher insurance premiums 

and taxes, as well as lost revenue. A study of 105 motorcyclists 

hospitalized at a major trauma center determined that 63 percent 

of their care was paid for by public funds, with Medicaid accounting for over half of all charges.’’ Research shows that universal helmet laws are the most effective way to reduce the number of 

deaths and traumatic brain injuries that result from crashes. Helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 69 percent, and unhelmeted 

riders are 40 percent more likely to die from a head injury than 

someone wearing a helmet. Regardless of this data, many States 

have repealed motor cycle helmet laws over the past decade. The 

Committee directs GAO to evaluate: (1) factors that have led to the 

increase in motorcycle fatalities; (2) actions NHTSA and States 

have taken to address the increase in motorcyclist fatalities; (3) the 

extent to which States’ use of SAFETEA–LU’s motorcycle safety 

grants affected motorcyclist safety; and (4) challenges faced by 

NHTSA and States in attempting to improve motorcyclist safety. 

State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grants.— 

The State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement program 

(section 408 program) provides grants to States to improve the 

timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of State data systems. The program brings together different stakeholders such as law enforcement, emergency medical 

personnel, and the courts to communicate and link files in their 

data systems. This information is then used to analyze crash occurrences, rates, and outcomes to direct highway safety initiatives. An 

April 2010 GAO report on the program found that States face resource challenges to improving traffic safety data systems, impeding their ability to meet NHTSA quality performance measures. 

While State funding makes up the majority of support for traffic 

safety data projects, without Federal resources to leverage State investments, many projects would have been delayed or cancelled. 

The Committee supports the increased use of data-driven approaches to allocate limited resources in order to improve traffic 

safety, and reallocates $8,500,000 from the safety belt performance 

grant program to the section 408 grant program, providing a total 

of $43,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Section 140 makes available $130,000 of obligation authority for 

section 402 of title 23 U.S.C. in order to pay for travel and expenses for State management reviews and highway safety staff 

core competency development training. 

Section 141 exempts obligation authority, made available in previous Public Laws for multiple years, from limitations on obligations for the current year. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

67 

Section 142 prohibits funds for the implementation of section 404 

of title 23, United States Code. 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an operating 

administration within the Department of Transportation on April 

1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of Railroad Safety from the 

Interstate Commerce Commission, the Office of High Speed Ground 

Transportation from the Department of Commerce, and the Alaska 

Railroad from the Department of the Interior. FRA is responsible 

for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve 

safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry. 

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

and other financial assistance programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry’s physical infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad Administration. 

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $176,596,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 1 ......................................................................... 223,034,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 176,596,000 

1The amount shown above represents the total level of funding requested for FRA’s safety 

programs and operations. The budget includes an $80,000,000 user fee as offsetting collections. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA rail 

safety activities and all other administrative and operating activities related to staff and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $176,596,000 for Safety and Operations for fiscal year 2012, which is $46,438,000 less than the funding included for these activities in the budget request and equal to 

the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The bill specifies that 

$12,300,000 shall remain available until expended. This funding 

covers the cost of the Automated Track Inspection Program, the 

Railroad Safety Information System, the Southeastern Transportation Study, research and development activities, contract support, 

and Alaska Railroad liabilities. 

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $35,030,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 40,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Railroad Research and Development program provides 

science and technology support for FRA’s rail safety rulemaking 

and enforcement efforts. It also supports technological advances in 

conventional and high-speed railroads, as well as evaluations of the 

role of railroads in the Nation’s transportation system. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

68 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,000,000 for 

railroad research and development, which is $10,000,000 less than 

the budget request and $5,030,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 

enacted level. 

CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDORS AND

INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2012 1 ......................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $100,000,000 

1The administration requested $4,000,000,000 for a new Network Development account for 

similar activities. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The funding provided under this heading is available for several 

programs authorized under the Passenger Rail and Investment and 

Improvement Act for investing in passenger rail infrastructure: 

grants for intercity passenger rail, grants for high-speed passenger 

rail, and grants to reduce congestion or facilitate ridership growth 

along passenger rail corridors. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENATION

The Committee recommends the appropriation of $100,000,000 

for grants to support intercity rail service and high speed rail corridors. The recommendation is $100,000,000 more than fiscal year 

2011 and $100,000,000 more than the budget request. 

RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing [RRIF] 

program was established by Public Law 109–178 to provide direct 

loans and loan guarantees to State and local governments, Government-sponsored entities, or railroads. Credit assistance under the 

program may be used for rehabilitating or developing rail equipment and facilities. No Federal appropriation is required to implement the program, because a non-Federal partner may contribute 

the subsidy amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in 

the form of a credit risk premium. The Committee directs FRA to 

report on RRIF loan activity for the preceding fiscal year in the annual budget submission to Congress, including the number of loans 

pending and issued and the processing time for these loans. 

The Committee maintains bill language specifying that no new 

direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made using 

Federal funds for the payment of any credit premium amount during fiscal year 2012. 

THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) operates 

intercity passenger rail services in 46 States and the District of Columbia, in addition to serving as a contractor in various capacities 

for several commuter rail agencies. Congress created Amtrak in the 

Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (Public Law 91–518) in response to private carriers’ inability to profitably operate intercity 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

69 

passenger rail service. Thereafter, Amtrak assumed the common 

carrier obligations of the private railroads in exchange for the right 

to priority access of their tracks for incremental cost. 

OPERATING GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $561,874,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 616,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 544,000,000 

The Committee provides $544,000,000 for Amtrak operating 

grants. The operating grant provides a subsidy to account for the 

difference between Amtrak’s self-generated operating revenues and 

its total operating costs. The amount provided is $72,000,000 less 

than the request and $17,874,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

Fleet Plan.—In April, Amtrak issued an updated fleet plan, describing the railroad’s strategy for replacing its outdated rolling 

stock over the next 30 years. For fiscal year 2013, the Committee 

continues to direct Amtrak to provide a unified request that includes funding related to its fleet plan and incorporates fleet acquisition into its prioritized list of capital projects. Amtrak should also 

continue to include annual information consistent with the comprehensive fleet plan in its budget submission, business plan, and 

5-year financial plan. Future updates to the fleet plan should refine 

the analysis of ridership growth projections, consistent with OIG 

recommendations. 

CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD

PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $921,778,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,546,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 936,778,000 

The Committee recommends $936,778,000 for capital and debt service grants for Amtrak, of which a minimum of $15,000,000 

shall be used to begin the Northeast Corridor [NEC] Gateway 

Project as requested in Amtrak’s budget and not more than 

$271,000,000 shall be available for debt service payments. The 

amount provided is $609,222,000 less than the budget request and 

$15,000,000 more than fiscal year 2011. 

ADA Compliance.—The Committee continues to believe that compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act [ADA] is essential to ensuring that all people have equal access 

to transportation services. In February 2009, Amtrak presented its 

plan for achieving compliance with the ADA over a 5-year period. 

Since then, the corporation has found it challenging to define the 

scope of projects to comply with ADA and complete work agreements with its partners at each station. For fiscal year 2012, Amtrak requests $175,000,000 for ADA compliance even though it has 

only committed 60 percent of the $144,000,000 provided by the 

Committee in fiscal year 2010. The Committee expects work to 

progress more rapidly now that some of the work agreements have 

been negotiated and are in place. The Committee urges Amtrak to 

continue its important work on ADA compliance while also maintaining its commitment to preserving the safety of the system. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

70 

Fleet Acquisition.—The Committee notes that Amtrak’s fleet plan 

identified several options for financing the replacement of its rolling stock, including direct appropriations, Federal credit assistance, 

and credit assistance through a private lender. The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing [RRIF] program provides an 

opportunity to soften the impact of reduced Federal contributions 

to the fleet plan, and to spread the cost of this assistance over the 

life of the equipment. Using the RRIF program also provides the 

Department with an opportunity to oversee Amtrak’s implementation of its fleet plan. In comparison to the RRIF program, the private market will demand a significantly higher interest rate. Furthermore, a portion of those interest earnings would represent profits to a private corporation. 

Given that Amtrak relies on Federal subsidies, and is therefore 

beholden to the Federal taxpayer for the responsible use of its 

funds, the Committee believes that Amtrak should not consider 

borrowing from the private market until every opportunity to apply 

for credit assistance from the Department of Transportation has 

been exhausted. The Committee was pleased with the Department 

of Transportation’s recent decision to provide a $563,000,000 RRIF 

loan to Amtrak to finance the purchase of 70 high-performance 

electric locomotives. The Committee expects FRA to expeditiously 

review the loan application for Amtrak to procure 40 additional 

Acela cars to meet growing ridership demand along the northeast 

corridor. This additional capacity is expected to provide an internal 

rate of return of over 40 percent over a 10-year period. Finally, the 

House and Senate Committee on Appropriations should be notified 

of any Amtrak decision to pursue credit assistance from either the 

Federal Government or the private sector. 

Amtrak Service in Rural Areas.—The Committee recognizes the 

importance of passenger train service to communities, and especially to rural areas, across the United States. The Committee also 

notes that natural disasters and environmental factors can present 

engineering challenges to servicing these communities. Consequently, the Committee encourages Amtrak to give priority consideration to projects that will ensure the continued operation of 

normal passenger rail service along any route that serves rural 

areas. 

On-time Performance Incentive Payments.—Amtrak makes access 

payments to freight railroads for use of the host railroads’ infrastructure. Additionally, it makes incentive payments to hosts based 

upon on-time performance metrics detailed in individual contracts 

between Amtrak and each host rail operator. The Amtrak OIG has 

conducted multiple audits on this issue and found that Amtrak’s financial and management controls for the processing and payment 

of invoices from host railroads are inadequate and ineffective, resulting in consistent overbilling from host railroads and overpayments by Amtrak. According to a September 2010 OIG report, over 

$50,000,000 in overpayments were identified based on audits of 

host railroads over the last 10 years. Given that Amtrak pays for 

the billing preparation services of the host railroads, it is unfortunate that invoices are not more accurate, complete, and reliable. 

In April 2010, Amtrak developed an action plan to establish a 

process to more thoroughly review billing invoices before making 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

71 

payments by December 2010. However, while Amtrak segregated 

and strengthened the invoice review process, Amtrak has failed to 

achieve its goals due to the excessive time it has taken to update 

host railroad agreements through amendment changes, develop 

policies and procedures for reviewing all invoices, and create training plans. The Committee directs Amtrak to report to the House 

and Senate Committee on Appropriations on the processes and procedures that are being implemented to improve financial controls 

for on-time performance incentive payments, and to establish accountability for the accuracy of host railroad billing by December 

1, 2011. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 150 permanently prohibits funds for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation from being available if the Corporation 

contracts for services, at or from any location outside of the United 

States, which were, as of July 1, 2006, performed by a full-time or 

part-time Amtrak employee within the United States. 

Section 151 allows the Secretary to receive and use cash or spare 

parts to repair and replace damaged track inspection cars. 

Section 152 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to allow 

issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase preferred 

stock sold to the Department of Transportation. 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Transit Administration was established as a component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization Plan 

No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred most of the 

functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act of 1964, as 

amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist in the development of improved mass transportation facilities, equipment, techniques, and 

methods; to encourage the planning and establishment of urban 

and rural transportation services needed for economical and desirable development; to provide mobility for transit dependents in 

both metropolitan and rural areas; to maximize the productivity 

and efficiency of transportation systems; and to provide assistance 

to State and local governments and their instrumentalities in financing such services and systems. 

The most recent authorization for transit programs was contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU], which expired on 

September 30, 2009. The authority for these programs has been extended through March 31, 2012. The Committee’s recommendations 

assume they will be further extended under their current structure 

until the enactment of a full reauthorization package. 

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of 

$10,629,278,000 would be provided for the activities of the Federal 

Transit Administration in fiscal year 2012. The recommendation is 

$11,720,736,000 less than the budget request and $332,112,000 

greater than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The latter included 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

72 

a one-time rescission of $280,000,000. The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations: 

Program 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2011 enacted 2012 estimate 

Administrative Expenses ...................................................................... $98,713,000 .......................... $98,713,000 

Formula and Bus Grants (trust fund) ................................................. 8,343,171,000 .......................... 8,360,565,000 

Research and University Research Centers ........................................ 58,882,000 .......................... 40,000,000

Capital Investment Grants .................................................................. 1,596,800,000 .......................... 1,955,000,000 

Grants for Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Reductions .......... 49,900,000 .......................... 25,000,000 

Grants to WMATA ................................................................................. 149,700,000 $150,000,000 150,000,000 

Operations and Safety ......................................................................... .......................... 166,294,000 ..........................

Research and Technology Deployment ................................................ .......................... 166,472,000 ..........................

Transit Formula Grants Program ......................................................... .......................... 7,691,000,000 ..........................

Bus and Rail State of Good Repair .................................................... .......................... 10,707,178,000 ..........................

Transit Expansion and Livable Communities Program ....................... .......................... 3,469,070,000 ..........................

Total ........................................................................................ 10,297,166,000 22,350,014,000 10,629,278,000 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $98,713,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 98,713,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Administrative expenses funds personnel, contract resources, information technology, space management, travel, training, and 

other administrative expenses necessary to carry out its mission to 

promote public transportation systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $98,713,000 for the agency’s salaries and administrative expenses. The recommended level 

of funding is the same as the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The 

Committee acknowledges this amount is below the level FTA requires to effectively manage its responsibilities. 

FTA has convincingly documented the need for additional staff to 

improve its ability to oversee projects, manage contracts, and provide technical assistance to local transit agencies. The latter includes efforts to identify and disseminate best practices in asset 

management, capital project development, and serving populations 

with special needs, as well as to broker broad agreement on a 

standard transit bus and light rail vehicle that could cut transit 

agencies’ future capital costs. Rail transit accidents in recent years 

indicate a need for FTA to exercise greater oversight of the 27 

State Safety Oversight agencies. The constrained fiscal environment prevents the Committee from addressing these needs in fiscal 

year 2012. 

Rail Station Accessibility.—The American with Disabilities Act 

provided an extended time period for a number of large transit systems to reach compliance with the act in regard to certain rail stations. The Committee directs the Secretary to provide the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report by June 30, 

2012, detailing these systems’ progress in achieving compliance 

with the act. The report should contain a list of stations that have 

reached full compliance with the act and a list not yet in complirfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

73 

ance. For each station not in compliance, details should be provided 

regarding the status of work already accomplished towards reaching compliance and a timeline for future actions to complete the remaining work. 

Project Management Oversight [PMO] Activities.—The Committee 

directs FTA to continue to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the quarterly FMO and PMO reports for 

each project with a full funding grant agreement. 

Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].—SAFETEA–LU, as 

amended and extended, requires that FTA notify the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking, 60 days before executing a full funding grant 

agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations, the Committee directs FTA to submit the following information: (1) a copy of the proposed full funding grant 

agreement; (2) the total and annual Federal appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly and total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated for future FFGAs for each 

fiscal year through 2016; (4) a detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization, by individual project; (5) an evaluation of whether the 

alternatives analysis made by the applicant fully assessed all the 

viable alternatives; (6) a financial analysis of the project’s cost and 

sponsor’s ability to finance the project, which shall be conducted by 

an independent examiner and which shall include an assessment 

of the capital cost estimate and finance plan; (7) the source and security of all public and private sector financing; (8) the project’s operating plan, which enumerates the project’s future revenue and 

ridership forecasts; and (9) a listing of all planned contingencies 

and possible risks associated with the project. 

The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations in writing 30 days before approving 

schedule, scope, or budget changes to any full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to all changes shall include any 

budget revisions or program changes that materially alter the 

project as originally stipulated in the FFGA, including any proposed change in rail car procurement. 

The Committee directs FTA to continue to provide a monthly 

new start project update to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations, detailing the status of each project. This update 

should include FTA’s plans and specific milestone schedules for advancing projects, especially those within 2 years of a proposed full 

funding grant agreement. It should also highlight and explain any 

potential cost and schedule changes affecting projects. In addition, 

FTA should notify the Committees 10 days before any project in 

the new starts process is given approval by FTA to advance to preliminary engineering or final design. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

74 

FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Obligation limitation 

(trust fund) 

Appropriations, 2011 ........................................................................................................................................ $8,343,171,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 .................................................................................................................................... ............................

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................................................ 8,360,565,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Formula and Bus Grants account includes funding for the 

following programs: urbanized area formula grants; clean fuels formula grants; formula grants for special needs of elderly individuals 

and individuals with disabilities; formula grants for other-than-urbanized areas; new freedom grants; growing States and high-density States grants; bus and bus facility grants; rail modernization 

grants; alternative transportation in parks and public lands; and 

the national transit database. Set-asides from formula funds are directed to a grant program for intercity bus operators to finance 

Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility costs. The account 

also provides funding for the administration’s Sustainable Communities Initiative through job access and reverse commute grants 

and the alternatives analysis and planning programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting obligations in the transit 

formula and bus grants account in fiscal year 2011 to 

$8,360,565,000. The recommendation is consistent with the authorized level in SAFETEA–LU as extended. 

The Committee recommends $9,400,000,000 in authority to liquidate contract authorizations. This amount is sufficient to cover 

outstanding obligations from this account. 

The following table displays the distribution of obligation limitation among the program categories of formula and bus grants: 

DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FORMULA AND BUS 

GRANTS 

Program category Amount 

Clean Fuels Program ...................................................................................................................................... $51,500,000 

Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program ..................................................................................................... 8,800,000 

Urban Area Formula Grants ........................................................................................................................... 4,160,365,000 

Bus and Bus Facilities .................................................................................................................................. 984,000,000 

Fixed Guideway Modernization ....................................................................................................................... 1,666,500,000 

Elderly and Persons with Disabilities ............................................................................................................ 133,500,000 

Nonurbanized Area Formula ........................................................................................................................... 465,000,000 

Growing States and High Density States ...................................................................................................... 465,000,000 

New Freedom .................................................................................................................................................. 92,500,000 

National Transit Database ............................................................................................................................. 3,500,000 

Alternative Transportation in Parks and Park Lands .................................................................................... 26,900,000 

Sustainable Communities: 

Job Access and Reverse Commute ....................................................................................................... 164,500,000 

Planning Programs ................................................................................................................................ 113,500,000 

Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 25,000,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

75 

Bus Rapid Transit.—The Committee proposes to fund the bus 

rapid transit projects included in the Department’s fiscal year 2012 

budget request in the Bus and Bus Facilities program. These 

projects are eligible for funding from Bus and Bus Facilities, and 

this shift will make it possible for the Committee to better support 

the rail transit projects in the Capital Investment Grants program. 

The Committee expects this change will absorb a small share of the 

funding available to Bus and Bus Facilities, leaving ample balances 

for the FTA’s State of Good Repair, Bus Livability, and other initiatives. 

RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS

General fund 

Appropriations, 2011 .............................................................................................................................................. $58,882,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 .......................................................................................................................................... ......................

Committee recommendation .................................................................................................................................. 40,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides financial assistance to support activities that are designed to develop solutions that improve public 

transportation. As the Federal agency responsible for transit, FTA 

assumes a leadership role in supporting research intended to identify different strategies to increase ridership, improve personal mobility, minimize automobile fuel consumption and air pollution, and 

enhance the quality of life in all communities. 

FTA’s research program has a long, distinguished record of success, having helped pioneer and test compressed natural gas [CNG] 

buses in the 1970s and hybrid diesel bus prototypes in the 1980s, 

leading to the widespread adoption of these technologies today. 

More recently, FTA supported efforts to develop the first practical 

fuel cell buses in the world. 

Under the auspices of the National Fuel Cell Bus Program 

[NFCBP], 16 new generation fuel cell buses are undergoing testing. 

Using the NFCBP as a foundation, one U.S. manufacturer, 

Proterra, has developed a battery-dominant hydrogen fuel cell 35- 

foot bus. Demonstrations have been completed in South Carolina 

and Austin, Texas. Initial responses in the transit industry have 

been positive, encouraging the company to establish a manufacturing plant in Greenville, South Carolina. 

With FTA funding, several transit agencies are now demonstrating the feasibility of Proterra buses in day to day operations 

in communities around the country. These advances would not be 

possible without FTA support since there are significant costs and 

risks associated with early adoption of unproven and not yet massproduced technologies. Federal support plays the crucial role of 

supporting promising research and testing, with the potential for 

significant benefits for the consumer and U.S. manufacturing. 

FTA research has also been involved in resurrecting the domestic 

streetcar industry at a time when more than 50 American cities 

are at some state of planning, building or expanding streetcar systems. Since 2006, FTA has awarded TriMet cooperative agreements 

and discretionary funding totaling $6,400,000 to build a Prototype 

Streetcar. Oregon Iron Works completed that prototype in 2010— 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

76 

the first ‘‘Buy American Act’’ compliant streetcar produced in the 

United States since 1952, using components from manufacturers in 

over 20 States. 

FTA may make grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or 

other agreements for research, development, demonstration, and 

deployment projects, and evaluation of technology of national significance to public transportation. FTA provides transit agencies 

with research results to help make them better equipped to improve public transportation and to help public transportation services meet national transportation needs at the lowest reasonable 

cost. FTA assists transit agencies to employ new service methods 

and technologies that improve their operations and capital efficiencies or improve transit safety and emergency preparedness. 

The purpose of the university transportation centers [UTC] program is to foster a national resource and focal point for the support 

and conduct of research and training concerning the transportation 

of passengers and property. Funds provided under the FTA’s UTC 

program are transferred to and managed by the Research and Innovation Technology Administration and combined with a transfer 

of funds from the Federal Highway Administration. The Committee 

understands the Department will be funding two UTCs exclusively 

focused on transit in fiscal year 2012. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for research and university research centers. The Committee recommendation is 

$18,882,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

The Committee supports the Department’s efforts to revive a domestic streetcar industry to take advantage of the renewed interest 

in light rail in communities across the country. To support this effort, the Committee directs the Department to submit a report 180 

days after enactment of this act to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs identifying legislative and regulatory barriers to domestic private and public manufacturers ability to compete for federally-supported streetcar and light rail contracts. 

Asset Management.—In 2008, the Committee required FTA to assess the condition of the Nation’s transit rail infrastructure. In 

April 2009, the agency reported that one-third of transit agencies’ 

assets are either in marginal or poor condition, and that significant 

reinvestment is necessary to address the backlog of capital needs. 

Given the large gap between the level of investment needed to 

bring rail transit into better condition and the amount of resources 

currently available for such investments, it is imperative that every 

dollar invested in rail capital improvements be put to its best use. 

Compounding the resource challenge is the general weakness of 

much of the transit sector’s ability to manage capital assets strategically. Asset management programs would enable transit agencies 

to take inventory of their capital assets, assess the condition of 

those assets, use objective and quantitative analysis to estimate reinvestment needs over the long term, and prioritize their capital investments by using all of the information and analysis that was required under the program. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

77 

In 2010, the Committee directed FTA to assume a leadership role 

in improving asset management in transit agencies. Specifically, 

the Committee instructed FTA to develop standards for asset management plans with an emphasis on maintaining safety, as well as 

to provide technical assistance to transit agencies on asset management and conduct a pilot program to identify best practices in the 

field. In August 2011, FTA awarded demonstration funding to six 

transit agencies. The selected pilot projects are required to submit 

preliminary reports to FTA in February 2012. FTA is directed to 

submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations summarizing these findings and lessons learned to date 

by June 1, 2012. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $1,596,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,955,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Capital Investment Grants account includes funding for two 

programs authorized under section 5309 of title 49 of the United 

States Code: the New Starts program and the Small Starts program. Under New Starts, the FTA provides grants to fund the 

building of new fixed guideway systems or extensions to existing 

fixed guideway systems. Eligible services include light rail, rapid 

rail (heavy rail), commuter rail, and busway/high occupancy vehicle 

[HOV] facilities. Under Small Starts, the FTA provides grants for 

projects requesting less than $75,000,000 and with a total cost of 

less than $250,000,000. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a level of $1,955,000,000 for capital 

investment grants. The recommended level is $358,200,000 above 

the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The bill does not include a provision requiring FTA to transfer funds to the DOT Office of Inspector 

General. The bill also rescinds $27,000,000 provided in Public Law 

111–8. 

For more than a decade, there has been renewed interest in 

many parts of the country in rail transit, especially in areas seeking to find solutions to road congestion, support economic development, manage population growth, and reduce air pollution. The 

Committee supports these investments, which it believes are essential to maintaining the Nation’s economic competitiveness. However, given the present fiscal constraints, the Committee proposes 

to shift bus rapid transit projects included in the President’s fiscal 

year 2012 budget under the Capital Investment Grants account to 

the Bus and Bus Facilities program within the Formula and Bus 

Grants account. These projects are eligible for funding from Bus 

and Bus Facilities, and this shift will make it possible for the Committee to better support the increasing number of rail transit 

projects in the Capital Investment Grants program. 

Appropriations for Full Funding Grant Agreements.—The Committee reiterates direction initially agreed to in the fiscal year 2002 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

78 

conference report that FTA should not sign any FFGAs that have 

a maximum Federal share higher than 60 percent. 

GRANTS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $49,900,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 for grants 

to public transit agencies for unique and innovative approaches to 

reducing energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions. The 

Committee supports the administration’s efforts to reduce the Nation’s dependence on foreign oil, and to encourage investment in 

clean energy sources to improve air quality. These funds will enable the FTA to support innovative technologies and other approaches, such as electric drive technologies, lightweight materials, 

and regenerative braking. The bill requires the FTA to place priority on projects that could be brought to scale, including the potential to be replicated by other transit agencies regionally or nationally. 

FTA’s Research account supported the development and testing 

of what may prove to be the first practical fuel cell buses in the 

world. With Federal support, one U.S. manufacturer, Proterra, has 

developed a battery-dominant hydrogen fuel cell 35-foot bus. 

While promising, the Proterra bus might not have advanced further were it not for Federal support for transit agencies willing to 

test the feasibility of these buses in day-to-day operations. Being 

the first to adopt a new technology is a risky, expensive proposition, one that few cash-strapped transit agencies were prepared 

to take in the midst of a recession. The Grants for Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Reductions [TIGGER] program provided timely support that made a broader demonstration of 

Proterra’s technology possible. With TIGGER grants, several transit agencies are now using Proterra buses in daily operations in 

communities around the country. While local testing remains in the 

early stages, the Proterra example highlights the important role of 

Federal funding in supporting promising research and demonstration: a relatively modest investment could yield significant benefits 

for the consumer and for U.S. economic competitiveness. 

The Committee encourages the FTA to continue to work with its 

academic and industry partners to identify and encourage other 

promising areas of technological innovation that might reduce transit operating costs and fuel use. 

GRANTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT

AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $149,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 150,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 150,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for grants 

to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA] 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

79 

for capital and preventive maintenance expenses. These grants are 

authorized under section 601 of the Passenger Rail Investment and 

Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–432), and are in addition to the funding support local jurisdictions have committed to 

provide to WMATA. The Committee remains committed to supporting the refurbishment and modernization of WMATA’s infrastructure. 

The bill requires the FTA to provide these grants to WMATA 

only after receiving and reviewing a request for each specific 

project to be funded under this heading. The bill also requires the 

FTA to determine that WMATA has placed the highest priority on 

funding projects that will improve the safety of its public transit 

system before approving these grants. The Committee expects FTA 

to make this determination by taking into account the extent to 

which WMATA plans to use the funding provided under this heading in order to implement the safety recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Section 160 exempts authority previously made available for programs of the FTA under section 5338 of title 49, United States 

Code, from the obligation limitations in this act. 

Section 161 requires that funds appropriated or limited by this 

act for specific projects not obligated by September 30, 2014, and 

other recoveries, be directed to projects eligible to use the funds for 

the purposes for which they were originally provided. 

Section 162 allows funds appropriated before October 1, 2011 

that remain available for expenditure to be transferred to the most 

recent appropriation heading. 

Section 163 allows unobligated funds for new fixed guideway system projects in any previous appropriations act to be used during 

this fiscal year to satisfy expenses incurred for such projects. 

Section 164 provides flexibility to fund program management 

oversight of activities authorized by section 5316 of title 49, United 

States Code. 

Section 165 requires unobligated funds or recoveries under section 5309 of title 49, United States Code, that are available for reallocation shall be directed to projects eligible to use the funds for 

which they were originally intended. 

Section 166 allows funds made available for Alaska or Hawaii 

ferry boats or ferry terminal facilities to be used to construct new 

vessels and facilities, or to improve existing vessels and facilities. 

Section 167 provides an exemption from the charter bus regulations for the State of Washington. 

Section 168 permits the Secretary to consider significant private 

contributions when calculating the non-Federal share of capital 

costs for New Starts projects. 

Section 169 requires that all Bus Rapid Transit [BRT] or busway 

projects recommended in the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request be funded from amounts made available to carry out the section 5309 bus category in this and future fiscal years, although 

these projects will remain subject to the section 5309 New Starts 

or Small Starts program requirements, whichever are appropriate. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

80 

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC] 

is a wholly owned Government corporation established by the Saint 

Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 981). SLSDC is 

a vital transportation corridor for the international movement of 

bulk commodities such as steel, iron, grain, and coal, serving the 

North American region that makes up one-quarter of the United 

States population and nearly one-half of the Canadian population. 

The SLSDC is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of the United States portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $32,259,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 33,996,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 34,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] was established by 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99– 

662). Since 1987, the HMTF has supported the operations and 

maintenance of commercial harbor projects maintained by the Federal Government. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund and revenues from non-Federal sources finance the operation and maintenance of the Seaway, for which SLSDC is responsible. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $34,000,000 for the operations, 

maintenance, and asset renewal of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. 

This amount is $4,000 more than the President’s budget request 

and $1,741,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The 

recommended level includes $17,100,000 to continue the agency’s 

Asset Renewal Program [ARP]. 

The Seaway is entering its 53rd year of operation, which means 

that its infrastructure components are reaching the end of their design life. The ARP is a significant 10-year, multi-project strategy to 

address the long-term asset renewal needs of the U.S. portions of 

the Saint Lawrence Seaway, with attention to the two locks operated and maintained by the United States (Snell and Eisenhower), 

the U.S. segment of the Seaway International Bridge, maintenance 

dredging, operational systems, facilities, and equipment. 

SLSDC has made significant progress in executing the projects 

identified in the ARP under limited construction capacity since receiving initial appropriations in fiscal year 2009. With the funds 

provided, 23 of the 56 projects identified should be complete by the 

end of fiscal year 2012. While the recalibration of the ARP is necessary to take into consideration more accurate cost estimates and 

evolving priorities, the continued deferral of more costly and critical lock construction projects is troubling. The annual budget rerfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

81 

quest has repeatedly not aligned with the ARP and has been insufficient to satisfy the scope of work identified in the 5-year capital 

investment plan submitted to Congress. The Committee is concerned that this has the potential to undermine the performance 

goals established for SLSDC’s 10-year ARP plan and jeopardize the 

safety and reliability of the waterway and lock system. A shutdown of either of the two U.S. locks would result in a loss of between $1,300,000 and $2,300,000 per day to those dependent on 

this mode of transportation. This would seriously impact the Great 

Lakes Seaway System’s global competitiveness for the movement of 

agricultural and steel-related products. 

The Committee directs SLSDC to continue to submit an annual 

report to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, not 

later than April 30 of each year, summarizing the activities of the 

ARP during the immediate preceding fiscal year. The report shall 

include up-to-date information on the status of each project, including: up-to-date cost estimates, as well as cost overruns or savings 

for each project; schedule changes and their causes; and updated 

projections to achieve the performance goals for the remaining life 

of the 10-year strategy. SLSDC is directed to include in the reports 

any other relevant information relating to the management, funding, and implementation of the ARP, as deemed appropriate by the 

Administrator. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Administration [MARAD] is responsible for programs authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended 

(46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). MARAD is also responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support of the 

Nation’s security and economic needs. MARAD prioritizes the Department of Defense’s [DOD] use of ports and intermodal facilities 

during DOD mobilizations to guarantee the smooth flow of military 

cargo through commercial ports. MARAD manages the Maritime 

Security Program, the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement 

Program, and the Ready Reserve Force, which assure DOD access 

to commercial and strategic sealift and associated intermodal capacity. MARAD also continues to address the disposal of obsolete 

ships in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that are deemed a potential environmental risk. Further, MARAD administers education 

and training programs through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six State maritime schools that assist in providing skilled 

merchant marine officers who are capable of serving defense and 

commercial transportation needs. The Committee continues to fund 

MARAD in its support of the United States as a maritime Nation. 

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $173,652,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 174,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 154,886,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

82 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Security Program [MSP] provides resources to 

maintain a U.S.-flag merchant fleet crewed by U.S. citizens to 

serve both the commercial and national security needs of the 

United States. The program provides direct payments to U.S.-flag 

ship operators engaged in U.S. foreign trade. Participating operators are required to keep the vessels in active commercial service 

and provide intermodal sealift support to DOD in times of war or 

national emergency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $174,000,000 for 

the MSP. This amount is equal to the budget request and $348,000 

more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. chapter 537, participants in the MSP are 

authorized to receive an increase in payments per vessel from 

$2,900,000 to $3,100,000 in fiscal years 2012 through 2015. This is 

the second authorized payment increase for the 60 vessel sealift 

program. The recommended appropriation, together with unobligated carry-over balances, provides sufficient funds to satisfy the 

fully authorized payment level for fiscal year 2012. 

The MSP is a successful and critical partnership with the Department of Defense and the U.S.-flag commercial maritime industry that supports military operations overseas. The MSP provides 

a sealift fleet capacity that would cost the Government 

$13,000,000,000 in capital to reproduce. Furthermore, according to 

the United States Transportation Command, it would cost the Government an additional $52,000,000,000 to replicate the global intermodal system that is made available to the Department of Defense 

by MSP participants who are continuously developing, maintaining, 

and upgrading their logistical support systems. The Committee 

strongly encourages the Department of Transportation to continue 

to support this proven and cost effective program in its fiscal year 

2013 budget request. 

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $151,446,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 161,539,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 154,886,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Operations and Training appropriation primarily funds the 

salaries and expenses for MARAD headquarters and regional staff 

in the administration and direction for all MARAD programs. The 

account includes funding for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, 

six State maritime schools, port and intermodal development, cargo 

preference, international trade relations, deep-water port licensing 

and administrative support costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $154,886,000 for 

Operations and Training at MARAD for fiscal year 2012. This 

amount is $3,440,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

83 

and $6,653,000 less than the budget request. The bill includes a rescission of $1,000,000 of prior year unobligated balances. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

Fiscal year 2012 

Senate 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy ........................................................................................................................... $85,395,000 

Academy Operations .................................................................................................................................... 62,538,000 

Salaries and Benefits ........................................................................................................................ 33,888,000 

Operating Expenses ............................................................................................................................ 22,899,000 

Information Technology ...................................................................................................................... 5,751,000 

Capital Improvements ................................................................................................................................. 22,485,000 

Capital Improvements ........................................................................................................................ 16,600,000 

Facilties Maintenance, Repairs, and Equipment ............................................................................... 5,885,000 

State Maritime Academies ................................................................................................................................... 16,045,000 

SMA Direct Payments .................................................................................................................................. 2,545,000 

Student Incentive Payments ....................................................................................................................... 2,400,000 

Schoolship Maintenance and Repair .......................................................................................................... 11,100,000 

MARAD Operations ............................................................................................................................................... 52,818,000 

Headquarters Operations ............................................................................................................................ 48,818,000 

Salaries and Benefits ........................................................................................................................ 29,269,000 

Non-Discreationary Operations ........................................................................................................... 10,900,000 

Information Technology ...................................................................................................................... 6,255,000 

Discretionary Operations and Travel .................................................................................................. 2,394,000 

Maritime Program Expenses ....................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 

Environment and Compliance ............................................................................................................ 4,000,000 

Marview .............................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Total, Operations and Training ..................................................................................................... 154,886,000 

United States Merchant Marine Academy.—The United States 

Merchant Marine Academy [USMMA] provides educational programs for men and women to become shipboard officers and leaders 

in the transportation field. The Committee is committed to ensuring the Academy’s midshipmen receive the highest quality education in preparation for a commission with the U.S. Naval Reserve 

or other uniformed service upon graduation. The Committee remains troubled that for many years, officials at the Academy engaged in questionable financial and management practices that 

compromised the integrity of the institution. Senior leadership both 

at MARAD and the Department of Transportation failed to exercise 

sufficient oversight of Academy operations and failed to effectively 

and collaboratively manage the physical infrastructure projects associated with the Academy’s Capital Improvement Program [CIP]. 

The culmination of these issues caused significant turmoil throughout all aspects of the Academy’s operations and resulted in a crisis 

of leadership, facilities management, and human resource management. 

Thankfully, the current Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the 

Department of Transportation have taken a keen interest in reforming the Academy and restoring it to a top-notch academic institution. However, significant challenges remain to achieving this 

goal. 

The Academy lacks a strategic plan necessary to bring direction 

to its instructional program and to identify and institute clear performance goals. Now that a new Superintendent is in place, the 

delays for this basic organizational assessment are inexcusable. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to submit to the House and 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

84 

Senate Committees on Appropriations a comprehensive strategic 

plan for the Academy by April 30, 2012. 

The Blue Ribbon Panel report emphasized the dire need for additional qualified staff to manage the maintenance of the Academy’s 

buildings and infrastructure and to oversee new construction and 

renovation projects. The report states: ‘‘It is the opinion of the 

Panel that the USMMA is critically understaffed, so much so that 

it is unable to properly develop, control, and oversee the current 

Capital Improvement Plan, or the construction the campus so urgently needs.’’ While the Committee is generally leery about increasing Federal staffing in the current budget environment, it 

lacks confidence in the ability of MARAD and the Academy to effectively manage and execute basic necessary maintenance and 

projects identified in the CIP at present staffing levels. Therefore, 

the Committee provides $500,000 above the budget request for the 

Academy to support up to five additional staff to manage facility 

maintenance and the CIP consistent with the recommendations of 

the Blue Ribbon Panel. Furthermore, the Academy shall provide to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations an organizational chart for the Academy, a detailed accounting of all authorized staff positions, the number of vacancies, and the job description of each position, no later than January 30, 2012. 

In November 2010, MARAD issued a revised USMMA Capital 

Improvements Implementation Plan in response to Blue Ribbon 

panel recommendations. Many of the top 20 proposed projects identified in the CIP are only in the conceptual phase. As with any 

major capital reinvestment plan, cost estimates will change as 

projects mature and the scope of work is refined. The Committee 

directs MARAD to consult with the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to assist the Academy in the development and institutionalization of best practices for project planning and cost estimation. GAO is directed to report its recommendations to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. Additionally, 

MARAD shall provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations an annual report on the status of the CIP on April 1 

of each year. The report should include current information on the 

status of the CIP, including, but not limited to, the following: a list 

of all projects in order of priority; an update on the status of each 

project that has received funding; cost overruns and cost savings 

for each active project and specific goals for project completion; 

delays and the cause of delays; schedule changes; up-to-date cost 

projections for each project, highlighted changes in estimates; and 

any other deviations from the CIP. MARAD is directed to include 

in its reports relevant information relating to the management, 

funding, and implementation of the CIP as deemed appropriate by 

the Administrator or Superintendent. 

The request for additional funds for a recruitment diversity initiative and the elimination of midshipmen fees is denied. While 

worthwhile proposals, the subcommittee regrets that due to severe 

budget constraints, it is not able to fund these requests. 

It is clear the internal processes and organizational changes that 

are needed to restore the Academy will take time to be fully implemented. Therefore, the Committee has once again included language requiring that all funding for the Academy be given directly 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

85 

to the Secretary, and that 50 percent of the funding will not be 

available until MARAD submits a plan detailing how the funding 

will be spent. The Committee believes this process will ensure the 

Secretary’s continued engagement, as well as sustain the newly developed system of funds control and accountability. 

Staffing.—The Committee is concerned about the large number 

of vacancies in MARAD and the agency’s inability to fill job announcements with qualified applicants. The absence of staff is impacting major programs that are critical to the agency’s core mission, such as cargo preference and the title XI loan guarantee program. The Committee directs MARAD to provide a quarterly report 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the 

number of vacancies and the duties associated with each vacant position for MARAD headquarters and regional staff. This reporting 

requirement does not include positions at the USMMA, which has 

a separate staff reporting requirement. 

Environment and Compliance.—The Committee commends 

MARAD’s initiative to support the domestic maritime industry’s efforts to comply with emerging international and domestic environmental regulatory requirements. Funds provided in fiscal year 2012 

should be used to continue independent testing of ballast water 

technologies to meet domestic and international regulatory requirements, as well as to assist in the testing and certification of air 

emissions reduction technology in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency. 

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $14,970,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 18,500,000 

Committee Recommendation ................................................................ 10,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Ship Disposal account provides resources to dispose of obsolete merchant-type vessels of 150,000 gross tons or more in the National Defense Reserve Fleet [NDRF], which MARAD was required 

by law to dispose of by the end of 2006. Currently there is a backlog of more than 66 ships awaiting disposal. Many of these vessels 

are 50 or more years old and have the potential to pose a significant environmental threat due to the presence of hazardous substances, such as asbestos and solid and liquid polychlorinated 

biphenyls [PCBs]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000 for 

MARAD’s Ship Disposal program. This level of funding is 

$4,970,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$8,500,000 less than the budget request. This level of funding, in 

addition to the anticipated carry over from previous appropriations, 

is sufficient to meet the terms and conditions of the Suisun Bay 

Reserve Fleet settlement, MARAD’s proposed fleet environmental 

initiative, and continued activities related to NS Savannah. The 

Committee directs MARAD to take all actions practicable and reasonable to align the scope of vessels listed for inspection in the notice of vessel visitation to the subsequent notice of vessels available 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

86 

for sale. Further, MARAD shall make best value determinations 

and award ship recycling contracts no later than 90 days from the 

close of the ship specific solicitation period for sales offers and/or 

price revisions for vessel dismantlement/recycling services. 

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL SHIPYARDS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $9,980,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistance to Small Shipyards program provides assistance 

in the form of grants, loans, and loan guarantees to small shipyards for capital improvements and training programs, as authorized by section 3506 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2006, 46 U.S.C. 54101. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides an appropriation of $10,000,000 for assistance to small shipyards. This level of funding is $20,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The President did not request funding for this program in fiscal year 2012. 

The Committee began funding this program in fiscal year 2008 

to assist small shipyards in maritime dependent communities to 

improve the efficiency of their operations by providing funding for 

equipment and other facility upgrades, as well as workforce training and apprenticeship programs. A total of 118 qualified applicants submitted requests totaling $105,000,000 in fiscal year 2011, 

far exceeding available resources. The funding recommended by the 

Committee will help improve the competitiveness of our Nation’s 

shipyard industry. 

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM [TITLE XI]

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $8,982,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 3,750,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,000,000 

Rescission ........................................................................................ ¥35,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Guaranteed Loan program was established pursuant to title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended. 

The program provides for a full faith and credit guarantee by the 

U.S. Government of debt obligations issued by: (1) U.S. or foreign 

ship-owners for the purposes of financing or refinancing either 

U.S.-flag vessels or eligible export vessels constructed, reconstructed, or reconditioned in U.S. shipyards; and (2) U.S. shipyards, 

for the purpose of financing advanced shipbuilding technology of 

privately owned general shipyard facilities located in the United 

States. Under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, appropriations to cover the estimated costs of a project must be obtained 

prior to the issuance of any approvals for title XI financing. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

87 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides an appropriation of $4,000,000 for the 

administrative expenses necessary to carry out the title XI loan 

guarantee program. This level of funding is $250,000 more than 

the President’s budget request and $4,982,000 less than the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level. The Committee does not support the administration’s proposal to rescind $54,100,000 from the title XI program. The Committee instead recommends a rescission of 

$35,000,000 as a one-time action to align program resources with 

anticipated demand in fiscal year 2012. This would leave 

$27,000,000 in offsetting subsidies for fiscal year 2012 capable of 

supporting a loan volume of up to $500,000,000. The Committee 

recognizes the importance that the title XI program provides for 

the advancement of shipbuilding, aiding the U.S.-flag fleet, and 

sustainment of jobs for this critical sector of our national defense. 

Furthermore, to improve the processing and coordination of title XI 

applications, the MARAD Administrator shall establish the capacity to manage the contracting of external, independent reviews of 

title XI applications during fiscal year 2012. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 170 authorizes the Maritime Administration to furnish 

utilities and to service and make repairs to any lease, contract, or 

occupancy involving Government property under the control of 

MARAD. Rental payments received pursuant to this provision shall 

be credited to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

Section 171. The Committee finds that the Administration has 

not properly handled Jones Act waivers for the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve drawdown by failing to consider U.S.-flag vessels with collective capacity to meet drawdown requirements. As of August 16, 

2011, MARAD had identified approximately 30 U.S.-flag vessels 

with more than 4 million barrels of capacity available to carry SPR 

cargoes, yet only one U.S.-flag vessel has been utilized in the drawdown. To ensure that all reasonable efforts are made to utilize 

U.S.-flag vessels, the Committee directs MARAD to (i) consider as 

suitable a vessel or vessels with single or collective capacity and (ii) 

identify in writing to CBP all U.S.-flag vessels capable of providing 

transportation of oil from the SPR that have responded to its requests for availability. 

PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration 

[PHMSA] was established in the Department of Transportation on 

November 30, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research 

and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108–246). 

PHMSA is responsible for the Department’s pipeline safety program as well as oversight of hazardous materials transportation 

safety operations. The administration is dedicated to safety, including the elimination of transportation-related deaths and injuries 

associated with hazardous materials and pipeline transportation, 

and to promoting transportation solutions that enhance communities and protect the environment. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

88 

OPERATIONAL EXPENSES

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $21,454,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 22,158,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,158,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds program support costs for PHMSA, including 

policy development, civil rights, management, administration, and 

agency-wide expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $22,158,000 for this account, of 

which $639,000 is to be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund, and 

of which $1,000,000 may be transferred to the Office of Pipeline 

Safety for Information Grants to Communities. This level of funding is equal to the budget request and $704,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The committee approves an additional 

three positions to accommodate the need for more accountability 

and control in the Office of Administration’s Human Resources program. The cost associated with these positions is offset by saving 

$287,000 in contractual services. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $39,020,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 1 ......................................................................... 50,089,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,520,000 

1 Includes a user fee as offsetting collections. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

and reduce the risks inherent in hazardous materials transportation. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,520,000 for 

hazardous materials safety, of which $1,716,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2014. Of the total amount provided, up to 

$2,500,000 collected from special permit and approval fees shall remain available until expended. The amount provided is $8,569,000 

less than the budget request and $2,500,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level. 

Special Permits and Approvals.—In 2010, the OIG conducted an 

investigation into PHMSA’s special permit and approvals program. 

The OIG found such egregious mismanagement affecting the safe 

transportation of hazardous materials that it was compelled to 

issue two special management advisories so that immediate action 

could be taken prior to issuance of a final report. As a result of 

these investigations, PHMSA developed action, data management, 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

89 

and information technology [IT] modernization plans to address the 

OIG findings. The OIG agrees that the agency is making significant progress in addressing many of its recommendations; however, 

insufficient resources will limit the agency’s ability to resolve pending recommendations and manage its responsibilities in accordance 

with statutory and regulatory obligations. 

In the fiscal year 2012 budget proposal, PHMSA proposed the 

creation of a user fee to reduce the burden on the Federal taxpayer 

for financing special permit and approvals activities. The Committee finds that the program provides benefits to identifiable 

users above and beyond what is provided normally to the public, 

and the establishment of a user fee is justified under GAO guidelines and authorities granted by 31 U.S.C. 9701. However, due to 

concerns from some members of the Committee and industry partners, the subcommittee cannot accept the user fee proposal at this 

time. 

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $106,705,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 119,864,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 118,364,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] is designed to promote the 

safe, reliable, and sound transportation of natural gas and hazardous liquids by pipelines. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $118,364,000 for the Office of Pipeline Safety. The amount is $11,659,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and equal to the budget request. 

Of the funding provided, $21,510,000 shall be derived from the Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund, $93,854,000 shall be derived from the 

Pipeline Safety Funds, and $3,000,000 shall be derived from Design 

Review Fees. 

The Pipeline Safety Office has the important responsibility of ensuring the safety and integrity of the pipelines that run through 

every community in our Nation. Following the passage of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, the Office of Pipeline Safety 

has taken important steps to improve the integrity of pipelines in 

order to protect our communities from pipeline incidents. Efforts by 

Congress and the OPS to push for further advancements in safety 

technologies, increase civil penalties, and educate communities 

about the dangers of pipelines have resulted in a reduction in serious pipeline incidents. However, it is critical that the agency continue to make strides in protecting communities from pipeline failures and incidents. 

Technical Assistance Grants.—In fiscal year 2009, the Committee 

provided funding for the first time for pipeline safety information 

grants to communities, or technical assistance grants [TAG]. Communities are able to obtain technical assistance through these 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

90 

grants in the form of engineering or other scientific analysis of 

pipeline safety issues. The funding will also help promote public 

participation in official proceedings. The Committee strongly believes that providing communities with resources to obtain expertise and assistance will help them protect their communities from 

future pipeline incidents. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $28,318,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 28,318,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,318,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 

1990 [HMTUSA] requires PHMSA to (1) develop and implement a 

reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 

public sector emergency response training and planning, and provide technical assistance to States, political subdivisions and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and periodically update a mandatory 

training curriculum for emergency responders. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $28,318,000 and an equal obligation 

limitation for the emergency preparedness grant program. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION—PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Section 180 establishes a cost recovery for design reviews as requested in the President’s budget. However, the Committee directs 

PHMSA to implement the fee within the parameters of section 18 

of S. 275, The Pipeline Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 

2011 as reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science 

and Transportation on July 7, 2011. 

RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $12,981,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 17,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,981,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Research and Innovative Technology Administration [RITA] 

was established in the Department of Transportation, effective November 24, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research and 

Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108–246). The mission of RITA is to strengthen and facilitate the Department’s multimodal and inter-modal research efforts, leverage and enhance 

intra-modal research efforts, and coordinate and sharpen the multifaceted research agenda of the Department. 

RITA includes the University Transportation Centers, the Volpe 

National Transportation Center and the Bureau of Transportation 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

91 

Statistics [BTS], which is funded by an allocation from the Federal 

Highway Administration’s Federal-aid highway account. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,981,000 for 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration for fiscal year 

2012. The amount provided is $1,619,000 less than the budget estimate and $3,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 level. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and the 

budget estimate: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2011 enacted 2012 estimate 

Salaries and administrative expenses ................................................ $6,957,000 $7,600,000 $6,974,000 

Alternative fuels research and development ....................................... 499,000 500,000 499,000 

RD&T coordination ............................................................................... 535,000 900,000 509,000 

Nationwide differential global positioning system .............................. 4,591,000 7,600,000 7,600,000 

Positioning, navigation and timing ..................................................... 399,000 1,000,000 399,000 

Total ........................................................................................ 12,981,000 17,600,000 15,981,000 

National Differential Global Positioning System.—The Committee 

recommendation includes an increase of $3,000,000 requested by 

the administration for the recapitalization of the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System [NDGPS]. 

The Committee recognizes that both RITA and the Coast Guard 

consider timely NDGPS recapitalization to be essential for preserving the system and maintaining service availability in the most 

cost-effective manner. The existing in-land NDGPS suffers from 

aging components, many of which now exceed their serviceable lifespan. Because of the system’s age, hardware is obsolete, and replacement parts are increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain. 

Many in-land receivers are being serviced with parts salvaged during the Coast Guard’s 2009 recapitalization of the Maritime DGPS 

system, or through costly special orders. Moreover, according to estimates provided by RITA, future O&M costs are expected to increase between 15 and 20 percent annually should recapitalization 

of the existing system be delayed. 

BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Limitation on obligations, 2011 ............................................................ $27,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 35,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 32,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] is funded by an 

allocation from the limitation on obligations for Federal-aid highways. The Bureau compiles, analyzes, and makes accessible information on the Nation’s transportation systems; collects information 

on intermodal transportation and other areas as needed; and enhances the quality and effectiveness of the statistical programs of 

the Department of Transportation through research, the developrfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

92 

ment of guidelines, and the promotion of improvements in data acquisition and use. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the appropriation of the Federal Highway Administration, the bill provides $27,000,000 for BTS. This funding is consistent 

with the authorization for BTS under SAFETEA–LU as discussed 

earlier in this report. In addition, the bill provides $5,000,000 to 

BTS from the Federal Highway Administration’s research program 

for a total program level of $32,000,000. This total funding level is 

$3,000,000 less than budget estimate, which is based on the administration’s legislative proposal for a long-term authorization of the 

surface transportation programs. The total funding level is also 

$5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The Committee includes the additional $5,000,000 for several efforts to improve transportation data. Of this total, the Committee 

provides $2,500,000 to establish the Safety Data and Analysis Program, which will provide access to safety data across a wide array 

of transportation modes, fill gaps in the Department’s collection of 

safety-related data, and identify areas of risk in the transportation 

system; $1,700,000 to make improvements to the Commodity Flow 

Survey so that the Department can continue to provide comprehensive data on commodity movements; and $800,000 to develop an 

automated system for obtaining data on international cargo movement. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $74,964,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 89,185,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 82,409,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective organization, with a mission to: 

—conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the 

programs and operations of the Department; 

—provide leadership and recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations; 

—prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and 

—keep the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding 

problems and deficiencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $82,409,000 for activities of the Office of the Inspector General, which is $6,776,000 less 

than the President’s budget request and $7,445,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

Transfers and Reimbursements from Other Agencies.—For the 

past several years, the FAA, FHWA, FTA, and NTSB have provided funds to the OIG to cover the cost of audits and investigarfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

93 

tions of their programs and financial statements. These agencies 

have either transferred funds directly to the OIG or provided the 

funding on a reimbursable basis. This year, however, the Committee recommendation provides this funding directly to the OIG, 

as requested by the administration. The recommended funding 

level for the OIG therefore includes an additional $6,434,000 that 

in previous years would have been included in the budgets of other 

agencies. 

Providing direct appropriations to the OIG will give greater 

transparency to the OIG budget, provide the funding in a more efficient manner, and simplify the relationship between the OIG and 

the agencies it oversees. 

Protecting the Current Workforce.—The Committee values the 

high-quality work produced by the OIG. This work is made possible 

because the OIG maintains a highly skilled workforce that is able 

to address a wide variety of technical issues. For several years 

leading up to fiscal year 2011, the Committee invested significant 

resources in the OIG workforce, and the Committee is disappointed 

to see that the full-year continuing resolution has forced the OIG 

to attrit a large portion of its staff. 

The Committee appreciates the administration’s request for $5,389,000 to support a dramatic increase to the OIG workforce 

and additional contractor support. Unfortunately, the Committee 

cannot provide this additional funding because it may be impossible to sustain such a large increase in staff as fiscal constraints 

increase in future years. The Committee, however, has included adjustments to the OIG funding level to cover the cost of inflation 

and increased rental payments in order to prevent these costs from 

further eroding the OIG workforce during the coming year. 

IT Modernization.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$500,000 for the OIG to complete the modernization of its information technology. This modernization effort includes improvements 

that will allow the OIG to more effectively track and report on its 

audit recommendations. The Committee notes that monitoring 

these recommendations over an extended period of time will greatly 

improve the ability of the OIG and this Committee to oversee the 

Department and its programs. 

Audit Reports.—The Committee requests the Inspector General 

to continue to forward copies of all audit reports to the Committee 

immediately after they are issued, and to continue to make the 

Committee aware immediately of any review that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major acquisition project or grant, 

or which recommends significant budgetary savings. The OIG is 

also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 15 

days any final audit or investigative report which was requested by 

the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Sole-source Contracts.—The Committee has included a provision 

in section 407 that requires all departments and agencies in this 

act to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on all sole source contracts, including the contractor, the 

amount of the contract, and the rationale for a sole-source procurement as opposed to a market-based procurement. The Committee 

directs the IG to assess any conflicts of interest with regard to 

these contracts and DOT. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

94 

Unfair Business Practices.—The bill maintains language which 

authorizes the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or 

deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers and ticket agents. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation 

Crediting 

offsetting 

collections 

Appropriations, 2011 .......................................................................................................... $29,010,000 $1,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................................................... 31,250,000 1,250,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 29,310,000 1,250,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Surface Transportation Board [STB] was created on January 

1, 1996, by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act 

of 1995 [ICCTA] (Public Law 104–88). The Board is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT, and is responsible for the regulation 

of the rail and pipeline industries and certain non-licensing regulation of motor carriers and water carriers. 

STB’s rail oversight activities include rate reasonableness, car 

service and interchange, mergers, line acquisitions, line constructions, and abandonments. STB’s jurisdiction also includes certain 

oversight of the intercity bus industry, pipeline carriers, intercity 

passenger train service, rate regulation involving noncontiguous 

domestic water transportation, household goods carriers, and collectively determined motor carrier rates. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $29,310,000. 

This funding level is $1,940,000 less than the President’s request 

$300,000 more than fiscal year 2011 enacted level. Included in the 

recommendation is $1,250,000 in fees, which will offset the appropriated funding, and $300,000 for the moderate Uniform Rail Costing System modernization initiative. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Section 190 allows funds for maintenance and operation of aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, 

as authorized by law. 

Section 191 limits appropriations for services authorized by 5 

U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an Executive Level IV. 

Section 192 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and expenses 

of more than 110 political and presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation. 

Section 193 allows funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration from States, counties, municipalities, other 

public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for 

training may be credited to each agency’s respective accounts. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

95 

Section 194 prohibits the use of funds in this act to make a grant 

or announce the intention to make a grant unless the Secretary of 

Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations at least 3 full business days before making the grant 

or the announcement. 

Section 195 allows rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor 

fees, and other funds received by the Department of Transportation 

from travel management center, charge card programs, subleasing 

of building space and miscellaneous sources are to be credited to 

appropriations of the Department of Transportation. 

Section 196 requires amounts from improper payments to a 

third-party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the Department of Transportation be available to cover expenses incurred in 

recovery of such payments. 

Section 197 establishes requirements for reprogramming actions 

by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 198 prohibits the Surface Transportation Board from 

charging filing fees for rate or practice complaints that are greater 

than the fees authorized for district court civil suits. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

(96) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $40,873,976,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 43,451,592,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 39,532,368,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was 

established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public 

Law 89–174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the 

principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned with 

the Nation’s housing needs, fair housing opportunities, and improving and developing the Nation’s communities. 

In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and interests of 

the Nation’s communities and of the people who live and work in 

them, HUD administers mortgage and loan insurance programs 

that help families become homeowners and facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and homeownership subsidy programs 

for low-income families who otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid 

neighborhood rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of our urban centers from blight and decay. 

HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the marketplace, and fosters programs and research that stimulate and 

guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but better 

communities and living environments. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends for fiscal year 2012 an appropria- tion of $39,532,368,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. This is $1,341,236,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 

enacted level and $3,918,852,000 less than the budget request. 

The Committee reiterates that the Department must limit the reprogramming of funds between the programs, projects, and activities within each account without prior approval of the Committees 

on Appropriations. Unless otherwise identified in the bill or report, 

the most detailed allocation of funds presented in the budget justifications is approved, with any deviation from such approved allocation subject to the normal reprogramming requirements. Except 

as specifically provided otherwise, it is the intent of the Committee 

that all carryover funds in the various accounts, including recaptures and de-obligations, are subject to the normal reprogramming 

requirements outlined above. No change may be made to any program, project, or activity if it is construed to be new policy or a 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

97 

change in policy, without prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations. Finally, the Committee expects to be notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs or activities prior to the implementation of such reorganizations, as well as be notified, on a 

monthly basis, of all ongoing litigation, including any negotiations 

or discussions, planned or ongoing, regarding a consent decree between the Department and any other entity, including the estimated costs of such decrees. 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $26,801,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 30,408,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

In previous years, this account provided all Personnel Compensation and Benefits and Non-Personnel Services funding for the Office of the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the Office of the Chief 

Operating Officer, the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Office of Public Affairs, and the Office of Small 

and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. Additionally, funding was 

included for the executive management in the offices of the Chief 

Financial Officer, the General Counsel, the Office of Public and Indian Housing, the Office of Community Planning and Development, 

the Office of Housing, the Office of Policy Development and Research, and the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. 

These individuals are responsible for developing policy and managing the resources necessary to carry out HUD’s mission. The core 

mission of the Department of Housing and Urban Development is 

to support community development, increase access to affordable 

housing free from discrimination and help Americans achieve the 

dream of home ownership. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is altering the ‘‘Management and Administration’’ accounts of the Department. As such, positions previously 

funded under this heading are funded under the ‘‘Administration, 

Operations and Management’’ heading or under one of the accounts 

under the ‘‘Program Office Salaries and Expenses’’ heading. 

ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS, AND MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $523,990,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2 530,117,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 549,499,000 

1Does not include $57,435,146 previously provided under the headings ‘‘Executive Direction’’ and ‘‘Working Capital Fund’’ and includes $28,436,150 in non-personnel expenses now funded 

in one of the accounts under the heading ‘‘Program Offices Salaries and Expenses’’. 2Does not include $64,926,000 requested under the headings ‘‘Executive Direction’’ and ‘‘Working Capital Fund’’ and includes $28,070,000 requested under this heading for non-personnel, which the Committee has recommended be funded in one of the accounts under the 

heading ‘‘Program Offices Salaries and Expenses’’. 

The Administration, Operations, and Management [AOM] account is the backbone of HUD’s operations, and consists of several 

offices that are supposed to work seamlessly to provide the leadership and support services to ensure the Department performs its 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

98 

core mission and is compliant with all legal, operational, and financial guidelines. The AOM account funds the salaries and expenses 

of the Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, the 

Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, the Office of General Counsel, the Office 

of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of Public Affairs, the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, the Office of Departmental 

Equal Employment Opportunity, the Office of Field Policy and 

Management, the Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination, the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, the Office of Strategic Planning and Management, the Office of the Chief 

Disaster and Emergency Management Officer, the Chief Operating 

Officer, the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and the Office of the Chief Information Officer, and the Center for FaithBased and Community Initiatives. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $549,499,000 for 

this account, which is $19,382,000 more than the budget request 

and $25,509,080 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The 

Committee recommendation includes funding for activities previously supported with amounts provided under the headings ‘‘Executive Direction’’ and ‘‘Working Capital Fund’’, and excludes nonpersonnel funding for program offices that has been moved to various accounts under the heading ‘‘Program Offices Salaries and Expenses’’. Therefore, when making a comparison that adjusts for 

these changes, the Committee recommendation for ‘‘Administration, Operations and Management’’ is $3,489,917 below the amount 

provided for the same activities in fiscal year 2011, and 

$20,268,000 below the President’s 2012 request. 

Funds are made available as follows: 

Amount 

Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary 1 ................................................................................. $4,610,000 

Office of Hearings and Appeals 1 ........................................................................................................................ 1,700,000 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 1 ................................................................................. 741,000 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 2 ................................................................................................................. 47,984,000 

Office of the General Counsel 2 ........................................................................................................................... 94,380,000 

Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 1 ............................................................................... 2,695,000 

Office of Public Affairs 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 3,988,000 

Office of the Chief Operating Officer 3 ................................................................................................................ 546,000 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer ......................................................................................................... 256,744,000 

Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination ......................................................................................... 10,476,000 

Office of Field Policy and Management .............................................................................................................. 47,543,000 

Office of the Chief Procurement Officer .............................................................................................................. 14,654,000 

Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity ..................................................................................... 3,708,000 

Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives ............................................................................................. 1,448,000 

Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities ............................................................................................... 2,627,000 

Office of Strategic Planning and Management ................................................................................................... 5,605,000 

Office of the Chief Disaster and Emergency Management Officer ..................................................................... 7,415,000 

Office of the Chief Information Officer 4 ............................................................................................................. 42,635,000 

1 Previously funded under the heading ‘‘Executive Direction’’. 

2 Includes funding previously provided under the heading ‘‘Executive Direction’’ for the immediate office of senior management. 

3 Previously called the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. 

4 Previously funded under the heading ‘‘Working Capital Fund’’. 

For many years, the Committee appropriated funding for the salaries and expenses of the entire Department in one account. This 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

99 

provided little transparency, and made it difficult for Congress to 

determine if funding was being used to meet the most pressing 

needs facing the Department and the country. In fiscal year 2008, 

the Committee created a new salaries and expenses structure to increase transparency of the Department’s spending and improve 

Congressional oversight. 

It was a challenge for HUD to adapt to the new structure. As intended, it required HUD to increase its focus on the management 

and performance of each office. It also enabled Congress to hold the 

Department, as well as individual offices, accountable for its performance. The Committee continues to believe that the increased 

transparency and oversight afforded through a salaries and expenses structure serves the Department’s and the taxpayers’ interest. 

While HUD still faces challenges, the Committee recognizes that 

it has improved its resource management. In recent years, HUD 

management has increased the fiscal discipline in program offices 

throughout the Department. As part of the on-going effort to improve operations, the Chief Operating Officer instituted quarterly 

reporting and meetings with each office to evaluate their performance. This has improved HUD’s ability to understand challenges 

and prioritize funding. 

As a result of its increased oversight, HUD has identified aspects 

of the existing structure that impede effective management. For example, if an office needs to improve the capacity of its workforce, 

it cannot currently spend personnel funding on training since nonpersonnel expenses are budgeted separately. The Committee agrees 

that some elements of the structure limit HUD’s ability to effectively manage resources. In the current fiscal environment, it is 

critical that the Department have the tools necessary to increase 

efficiency and performance. To make that possible, while maintaining transparency and accountability, the Committee is recommending modifications to the salaries and expenses structure. The 

Committee hopes that these changes will allow HUD to achieve 

better outcomes for its programs and taxpayers. 

Explanation of Changes in Structure.—As the Committee considered the structural changes, it looked to the management structure 

of the Department of Transportation and other Departments. The 

Committee has eliminated the ‘‘Executive Direction’’ account, and 

instead includes the Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy 

Secretary, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, and Office of Public Affairs within the 

‘‘Administration, Operations and Management’’ account. In addition, there is no longer a separation between senior management 

of an office and the rest of its staff. For example, the funding for 

the Immediate Office of Chief Financial Officer [CFO] is now included within the budget for the Office of the CFO. The Committee 

has found budgeting for these offices separately provided minimal 

value, and they were often difficult to manage given their size. 

The account now also includes the Office of the Chief Operating 

Officer, which replaces the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. The revised structure includes the Office of the Chief 

Disaster and Emergency Management Office. This addition does 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

100 

not include new FTEs, rather it moves current staff to better align 

staff responsibilities and management. The recommendation also 

includes a transfer of staff from Field Policy and Management to 

the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH]. Currently, 

HUD staff are detailed to ICH. 

The Committee has also placed the Office of the Chief Information Officer [OCIO] within the ‘‘Administration, Operations and 

Management’’ account. In prior years, OCIO was funded within the 

Department’s ‘‘Working Capital Fund’’ account. This provided a 

limited view of both the personnel for the office and the amount of 

funding directly related to technology. In light of the major information technology changes occurring at HUD, the Committee has 

become increasingly focused on the capacity of the OCIO. The Committee believes that by separately funding the OCIO, it will be able 

to better monitor the OCIO’s workforce needs and performance. 

Finally, the budget no longer includes a line item for the nonpersonnel expenses of the Department. Instead, funding for these 

expenses is provided directly to each office. This provides greater 

transparency into the true cost of each office, and also provides additional flexibility for managers to allocate funding between personnel and expenses. The Committee notes that as a result of this 

merging of budget categories, it appears that the Office of the Chief 

Human Capital Officer has increased significantly; this is not the 

case, but instead reflects that significant departmental expenses 

such as rent are funded out of this office. 

Budget Documents.—The Committee has been careful to ensure 

that these modifications still provide Congress with the transparency necessary to hold HUD accountable for its performance. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to include more 

detailed information on its salaries and expenses costs in the fiscal 

year 2013 congressional justification. This information is critical to 

ensuring that Congress has the necessary information to make decisions about how funding is allocated. Therefore the justification 

for the salaries and expenses requests across the Department 

should include an explanation of proposed changes in full-time 

equivalent [FTE] personnel, as well as the program areas for which 

any increase or decrease in FTEs being sought. All information 

should be presented by office in a format consistent with the structure in the bill. The Committee expects the documents to include 

detailed information on non-personnel related expenses, including 

travel by program office, and that any significant deviations from 

prior budgets will be fully explained and justified. 

Travel.—The Committee has revised the structure to provide 

greater flexibility between personnel and non-personnel expenses. 

However, the Committee wants to ensure that this additional flexibility does not lead to increased travel and conference participation. 

The Committee directs that travel for all offices funded under the 

heading management and administration shall not exceed 

$18,000,000, a decrease of $1,500,000 below the fiscal year 2011 

amount. 

Procurement.—The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer is responsible for obtaining all contracted goods and services for the Department. As such, this office is involved in everything from research projects to information technology investments. The Comrfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

101 

mittee understands that the office is undergoing changes to increase its effectiveness. To monitor the impact of these efforts, the 

Committee directs HUD to provide bi-annual updates to the Committees on Appropriations on the average time it takes for the office to execute contracts and its use of sole-source contracts, including comparisons with prior years. 

PROGRAM OFFICES SALARIES AND EXPENSES

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $188,695,852 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2 189,610,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 201,233,000 

1Does not include $2,210,750 provided for the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Public and Indian Housing under the heading ‘‘Executive Direction’’ and $12,797,000 for nonpersonnel expenses funded under the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations and Management’’. 2Does not include $1,936,000 requested for the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Public and Indian Housing under the heading ‘‘Executive Direction’’ and $9,687,000 for nonpersonnel expenses requested under the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations and Management’’. 

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 46 field offices in the Office of Public 

and Indian Housing [PIH]. PIH is charged with ensuring the availability of safe, decent, and affordable housing, creating opportunities for residents’ self sufficiency and economic independence, and 

assuring the fiscal integrity of all public housing agencies. The Office ensures that safe, decent and affordable housing is available to 

Native American families, creates economic opportunities for tribes 

and Indian housing residents, assists tribes in the formulation of 

plans and strategies for community development, and assures fiscal 

integrity in the operation of the programs. The Office also administers programs authorized in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 [NAHASDA], which provides housing assistance to Native Americans and Native Hawaiians. PIH also manages the Housing Choice Voucher program, in 

which tenant-based vouchers increase affordable housing choices 

for low-income families. Tenant-based vouchers enable families to 

lease safe, decent, and affordable privately owned rental housing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $201,233,000 for 

this account, which is $11,623,000 more than the budget request 

and $12,537,148 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The 

Committee recommendation includes funding for the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for PIH, which was funded in fiscal 

year 2011 and requested for fiscal year 2012 under the heading 

‘‘Executive Direction’’. It also includes funding for nonpersonnel expenses previously provided and requested for fiscal year 2012 

under the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations and Management’’. 

When making a comparison that adjusts for these changes, the 

Committee recommendation is $2,380,602 below the amount provided for the same activities in fiscal year 2011, and equal to the 

President’s 2012 request. 

PIH’s responsibilities include the oversight of public housing 

agencies [PHAs] across the country that manage public housing 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

102 

and participate in the section 8 tenant-based rental assistance program. These programs serve more than 3 million low-income individuals and families across the country. Section 8 also represents 

the largest single item in HUD’s budget. The oversight of these 

programs is therefore critical to protecting both residents and taxpayers. 

Given the task that HUD, and PIH in particular, has in overseeing this significant Federal investment in affordable housing, it 

is critical that PIH staff have the ability to identify and mitigate 

risks in its programs. The Committee is concerned by recent reports of misuse of funds by PHAs. While these PHAs represent a 

small fraction of the thousands of PHAs across the country, they 

raise questions about the adequacy of HUD’s oversight. 

The Committee notes that HUD has taken steps to improve its 

oversight capacity. This includes putting greater focus on financial 

management practices of PHAs, updating the skills of its workforce 

to better align them with the current practices of PHAs, and deploying a new strategy for addressing troubled housing agencies. 

This additional focus is warranted, and the Committee encourages 

HUD to work with the HUD Office of Inspector General to identify 

additional ways to mitigate risk in its programs. 

The Committee is focused on the steps HUD is taking to increase 

its capacity to hold PHAs accountable. As such, the Committee requests detailed information on these efforts to understand the 

strategies being used to guide implementation. The Committee expects that the strategies HUD is using are based on an assessment 

of systemic weaknesses in its oversight, as well as an evaluation 

of areas of the country that seem to have greater challenges. The 

Committee directs HUD to provide the Committees on Appropriations with a report within 180 days of enactment of this act describing this risk assessment and the specific steps being taken to 

mitigate those identified. The report should include a timeline for 

implementing any reforms, efforts to incorporate HUD field staff, 

and measures to assess performance. The report should also include information on the strategies to address troubled PHAs, as 

well as steps that HUD will take to hold PHAs accountable for mismanagement. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $96,795,022 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2 99,815,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 101,076,000 

1Does not include $1,777,438 provided for the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development under the heading ‘‘Executive Direction’’ and $3,105,000 

for nonpersonnel expenses funded under the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations and Management’’. 2Does not include $2,026,000 requested for the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Community Planning and Development under the heading ‘‘Executive Direction’’ and 

$2,891,000 for nonpersonnel expenses requested under the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations 

and Management’’. 

This account provides salary and benefits funding for Community 

Planning and Development [CPD] staff in headquarters and in 43 

field offices. CPD’s mission is to support successful urban, suburban and rural communities by promoting integrated approaches to 

community and economic development. CPD programs also assist 

in the expansion of opportunities for low- and moderate-income inrfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

103 

dividuals and families in moving towards home ownership. The Assistant Secretary for CPD administers formula and competitive 

grant programs as well as guaranteed loan programs that help 

communities plan and finance their growth and development. 

These programs also help communities increase their capacity to 

govern and provide shelter and services for homeless persons and 

other persons with special needs, including person with HIV/AIDS. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $101,076,000 for the staffing within this office, which is $1,261,000 more than the 

budget request and $4,280,978 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The Committee recommendation includes funding for 

the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community 

Planning and Development, which was funded in fiscal year 2011 

and requested for fiscal year 2012 under the heading ‘‘Executive 

Direction’’. It also includes funding for nonpersonnel expenses previously provided and requested for fiscal year 2012 under the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations and Management’’. Therefore, 

when making a comparison that adjusts for these changes, the 

Committee recommendation is $602,460 below the amount provided 

for the same activities in fiscal year 2011, and $3,657,000 below 

the President’s 2012 request. This office is being reduced by five 

FTE to reflect a transfer of staff to the U.S. Interagency Council 

on Homelessness [ICH]. These staff had previously been detailed to 

ICH. 

The Committee notes the concerns that have been raised in recent months about the oversight of the HOME Investment Partnership Program. In providing new funding for this program, the Committee has included additional requirements to mitigate identified 

program risks. In order to ensure that these funds are used appropriately and grantees are held accountable, HUD must provide adequate training to its staff on both new and existing requirements. 

The Committee also wants to ensure that staff are utilizing the information that grantees are providing through its systems to identify risks. Finally, HUD must work to ensure that the staff responsible for monitoring grantees are focused not simply on the obligation and expenditure of funds, but on assessing the outcomes of 

HOME investments. 

HOUSING

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $381,123,226 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2 397,660,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 392,796,000 

1Does not include $3,490,006 provided for the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner under the heading ‘‘Executive Direction’’ and 

$8,183,000 in nonpersonnel expenses provided under the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations 

and Management’’. 2Does not include $3,500,000 requested for the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner under the heading ‘‘Executive Direction’’ and 

$9,092,000 requested for nonpersonnel expenses under the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations 

and Management’’. 

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 52 field locations in the Office of Housing. The Office of Housing is responsible for implementing programs to assist projects for occupancy by very low-and moderaterfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

104 

income households, to provide capital grants to nonprofit sponsors 

for the development of housing for the elderly and handicapped, 

and to conduct several regulatory functions. The Office also administers Federal Housing Administration [FHA] programs. FHA administers HUD’s mortgage and loan insurance programs which facilitate the financing of new construction, rehabilitation or the purchase of existing dwelling units. The Office also provides services 

to maintain and preserve homeownership, especially for underserved populations. This assistance allows lenders to make lowercost financing available to more borrowers for home and home improvement loans, and apartment, hospital, and nursing home loans. 

FHA provides a vital link in addressing America’s homeownership 

and affordable housing needs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $392,796,000 for 

staffing in the Office of Housing, which is $4,864,000 less than the 

budget request and $11,672,774 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The Committee recommendation includes funding for 

the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing Commission, which was funded in fiscal year 2011 

and requested for fiscal year 2012 under the heading ‘‘Executive 

Direction’’. It also includes funding for nonpersonnel expenses previously provided and requested for fiscal year 2012 under the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations and Management’’. Therefore, 

when making a comparison that adjusts for these changes, the 

Committee recommendation is $232 below the amount provided for 

the same activities in fiscal year 2011, and $17,456,000 below the 

President’s 2012 request. 

The Office of Housing includes the Federal Housing Administration [FHA], which as a result of the housing crisis is currently 

playing an outsized role in the market. FHA’s ability to provide 

continued access to liquidity has helped provide some stability to 

the housing market, but its increased role does not come without 

risk. Sufficient staff with the appropriate expertise is critical to 

mitigating this risk through strong oversight. To highlight the importance of this work, the Committee has set-aside at least 

$8,200,000 for the Office of Risk Management and Regulatory Affairs. 

The Committee has supported HUD’s efforts to bolster FHA staff, 

and has worked to provide sufficient resources for HUD to fulfill 

the staffing plan required by the Committee. The Committee is 

concerned that the pressure to reduce Federal spending will affect 

FHA’s ability to monitor its portfolio. Given the budget constraints, 

it is critical that the Office of Housing evaluate the allocation of 

current staff across all of its programs. In particular, the Committee notes that the reductions in the size of programs within the 

Office of Housing, such as the Housing Counseling, may provide an 

opportunity to reallocate staff to areas of greater risk and need. 

The Committee directs HUD to provide quarterly updates to the 

Committees on Appropriations on its staffing, including any FTE 

reallocations. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

105 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $11,073,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

This account provides all salary and benefits funding to support 

the Government National Mortgage Association [Ginnie Mae] headquarters staff. Ginnie Mae programs help expand the supply of affordable housing in the United States by linking the capital markets to the Nation’s housing markets. Ginnie Mae accomplishes 

this by facilitating the financing of residential mortgage loans insured or guaranteed by the FHA, the Department of Veteran Affairs [VA], and additional entities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is not recommending an appropriation for the 

staff of the Office of the Government National Mortgage Association. Instead, the Committee recommends funding the salaries and 

expenses of Ginnie Mae employees out of fees it collects, consistent 

with the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2012. While the 

funding structure for Ginnie Mae is changing, the Committee will 

continue to maintain oversight of Ginnie Mae salaries and expenses through the annual appropriations process. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $19,099,724 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2 21,390,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 23,016,000 

1Does not include $1,094,806 provided for the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research under the heading ‘‘Executive Direction’’ and $2,821,000 provided for nonpersonnel expenses provided under the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations and 

Management’’. 2Does not include $1,154,000 requested for the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research under the heading ‘‘Executive Direction’’ and $2,685,000 

requested for nonpersonnel expenses requested under the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations 

and Management’’. 

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 16 field locations in the Office of Policy Development and Research [PD&R]. PD&R supports the Department’s efforts to help create cohesive, economically healthy 

communities. PD&R is responsible for maintaining current information on housing needs, market conditions, and existing programs, as well as conducting research on priority housing and community development issues. The Office provides reliable and objective data and analysis to help inform policy decisions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,016,000 for 

this account, which is $1,626,000 more than the budget request 

and $3,916,276 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The 

Committee recommendation includes funding for the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, which was funded in fiscal year 2011 and requested for fiscal year 2012 under the heading ‘‘Executive Direction’’. It also includes funding for nonpersonnel expenses previously provided and 

requested for fiscal year 2012 under the heading ‘‘Administration, 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

106 

Operations and Management’’. Therefore, when making a comparison that adjusts for these changes, the Committee recommendation 

is $470 below the amount provided for the same activities in fiscal 

year 2011, and $2,213,000 below the President’s 2012 request. 

The Committee expects that as fewer research dollars are available, HUD will more effectively use the existing staff in PD&R to 

conduct housing research instead of relying on outside research 

contracts. 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $71,656,400 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2 70,733,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 74,766,000 

1Does not include $926,144 provided for the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity under the heading ‘‘Executive Direction’’ and $3,281,000 

provided for nonpersonnel expenses provided under the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations 

and Management’’. 2Does not include $852,000 requested for the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity under the heading ‘‘Executive Direction’’ and $3,350,000 

requested for nonpersonnel expenses requested under the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations 

and Management’’. 

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 42 field locations in the Office of Fair 

Housing and Equal Opportunity [FHEO]. FHEO is responsible for 

investigating, resolving, and prosecuting complaints of housing discrimination, as well as conducting education and outreach activities to increase awareness of the requirements of the Fair Housing 

Act. The Office also develops and interprets fair housing policy, 

processes complaints, performs compliance reviews and provides 

oversight and technical assistance to local housing authorities and 

community development agencies regarding section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $74,766,000, 

which is $4,033,000 more than the budget request and $3,109,600 

more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The Committee recommendation includes funding for the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, which 

was funded in fiscal year 2011 and requested for fiscal year 2012 

under the heading ‘‘Executive Direction’’. It also includes funding 

for nonpersonnel expenses previously provided and requested for 

fiscal year 2012 under the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations 

and Management’’. Therefore, when making a comparison that adjusts for these changes, the Committee recommendation is 

$928,544 below the amount provided for the same activities in fiscal year 2011 and equal to the President’s 2012 request. 

OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $7,136,698 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2 7,167,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,502,000 

1This amount does not include $365,000 provided for nonpersonnel expenses funded under the 

heading ‘‘Administration, Operations and Management’’. 2This amount does not include $365,000 requested for nonpersonnel expenses requested under 

the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations and Management’’. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

107 

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support the 

Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control [OHHLHC] 

headquarters staff. OHHLHC administers and manages the leadbased paint and healthy homes activities of the Department, and 

is directly responsible for the administration of the Lead-Based 

Paint Hazard Reduction program. The Office also develops leadbased paint regulations, guidelines, and policies applicable to HUD 

programs, designs lead-based paint and healthy homes training 

programs, administers lead-hazard control and healthy homes 

grant programs, and implements the lead and healthy homes research program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,502,000 for 

this account, which is $335,000 more than the budget request and 

$365,302 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The Committee recommendation includes funding for nonpersonnel expenses 

previously provided and requested for fiscal year 2012 under the 

heading ‘‘Administration, Operations and Management’’. Therefore, 

when making a comparison that adjusts for these changes, the 

Committee recommendation is $312 below the amount provided for 

the same activities in fiscal year 2011, and $30,000 below the 

President’s 2012 request. 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... $200,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Rental Assistance Demonstration [RAD] is intended to test a 

model to preserve public housing. Participation in the program by 

public housing agencies would be voluntary and involve the conversion to an improved form of property-based rental assistance. This 

form of rental assistance would enable public housing agencies to 

leverage private sector resources in order to recapitalize this housing stock and maintain these units of affordable housing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has not included $200,000,000 as requested by 

the administration for Transforming Rental Assistance. In the current budget environment, maintaining adequate funding for existing programs is a greater priority, and the Committee cannot divert the significant resources requested from core programs to fund 

this new initiative. However, the Committee sees value in the administration’s efforts to look for new ways to recapitalize public 

housing. Therefore, the Committee has included authority for HUD 

to conduct a Rental Assistance Demonstration [RAD], which will 

allow the Secretary to use existing resources to test conversion as 

an approach to recapitalizing public housing. 

Public housing provides over 1.1 million low-income Americans 

with a safe and affordable place to live. Thousands of public housing agencies [PHAs] across the country work to manage and prerfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

108 

serve this valuable asset. This task has become increasingly difficult as the portfolio continues to age, and Federal resources are 

unable to keep up with need. According to the Capital Needs in 

Public Housing Program report released by HUD in November 

2010, the capital needs backlog in public housing is 

$25,600,000,000. The Committee is concerned that without an infusion of new resources to bring public housing stock into a state of 

good repair, irreplaceable affordable housing will be permanently 

lost. Given the constraints on the Federal budget, leveraging nonFederal sources of funding is increasingly important to meeting 

this need. 

Under the proposed demonstration, PHAs can voluntarily convert 

public housing units to section 8 project-based vouchers or contracts. Currently, PHAs have a limited ability to leverage other resources, such as low-income tax credits or private financing, under 

the public housing model. PHAs that volunteer to participate in 

this demonstration will not receive additional subsidies, but will instead convert their existing subsidy into a more flexible one. Specifically, the language gives the Secretary the authority to move 

the funding provided to participating PHAs under the ‘‘Public 

Housing Capital Fund’’ and ‘‘Public Housing Operating Fund’’ into 

either the ‘‘Section 8 Tenant-based Rental Assistance’’ or ‘‘Projectbased Rental Assistance’’ accounts. The result of these transfers 

will be cost neutral, since any increase to the rental assistance programs will be offset by reductions to the public housing programs. 

Importantly, increases and decreases will be directly related to the 

units of housing that are part of the demonstration. As a result, 

the changes should not adversely impact PHAs that continue to 

rely on the public housing programs. 

When the administration first proposed this type of initiative in 

fiscal year 2011, it was met with questions and concerns. PHAs 

were concerned that this initiative would further undermine their 

efforts to preserve public housing, and the Committee was concerned about the long-term costs associated with the proposal. 

Since that time, the administration has developed better data and 

refined its proposal to address many of these concerns. Despite 

these improvements, questions remain that the Committee believes 

can only be answered by testing this concept. 

The Committee sees RAD as an opportunity to understand how 

this model would work in practice, and has crafted a demonstration 

that is limited in scope, but can answer some of the critical questions related to the proposal. In particular, the Committee asks 

HUD to test if section 8 vouchers or contracts create new opportunities for PHAs to leverage resources to recapitalize their portfolios. It will also require HUD to establish criteria designed to test 

the effectiveness of this model in different geographic areas and 

housing markets, but only to the extent that PHAs representing 

different areas and markets apply to participate in the demonstration. The language also requests that HUD aim to include PHAs 

of varying sizes. 

The Committee has also worked to ensure that the demonstration does not adversely impact tenants, and stipulates that all residents living in converted properties will maintain their existing 

rights. In addition, the Committee supports the objective of offering 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

109 

public housing choice mobility as an important component of this 

demonstration in a manner that serves residents and provides 

flexibility for PHAs to work with HUD, to determine how to meet 

this objective. The Committee has included language to establish 

procedures that will ensure that public housing remains a public 

asset in the that event that the project experiences problems, such 

as default or foreclosure. 

Finally, the Committee requires that HUD conduct an evaluation 

of this demonstration. Until HUD and Congress have a better 

sense of the benefits and costs of this model, it cannot develop or 

implement an effective strategy for public housing preservation. 

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 .............................................................................1 $18,362,873,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2 19,222,569,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2 18,872,357,000 

1 Includes an advance appropriation of $3,992,000,000. 

2 Includes an advance appropriation of $4,000,000,000. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the section 8 tenant-based 

(voucher) program. Section 8 tenant-based housing assistance is 

one of the principle appropriations for Federal housing assistance 

and provides rental housing assistance to approximately 2 million 

families. The program also funds incremental vouchers to assist 

nonelderly disabled families and vouchers for tenants who live in 

projects where the owner of the project has decided to leave the 

section 8 program. The program also provides for the replacement 

of units lost from the assisted housing inventory through its tenant 

protection vouchers. Under these programs, eligible low-income 

families pay 30 percent of their adjusted income for rent, and the 

Federal Government is responsible for the remainder of the rent, 

up to the fair market rent or some other payment standard. This 

account also provides funding for the Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] 

and Housing and Urban Development Veterans Supportive Housing [HUD–VASH] programs. Under FSS, families receive job training and employment that should lead to a decrease in their dependency on government assistance and help them move toward economic self-sufficiency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,872,357,000 

for fiscal year 2012; including $4,000,000,000 as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1, 2012. This amount is 

$350,212,000 less than the budget request and $509,484,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

The Committee recommends $17,143,905,000 for the renewal 

costs of section 8 vouchers, which is equal to the budget request 

and $474,622,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The 

Committee is continuing to review estimates of renewal need in 

order to protect current voucher holders. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

110 

The section 8 rental assistance program is a critical tool that enables over 2 million low-income individuals and families to access 

safe, stable and affordable housing in the private market. 

In recognition of the section 8 program’s central role in ensuring 

housing for vulnerable Americans, the Committee has worked to 

provide sufficient resources so that no current voucher holders are 

put at risk of losing their housing. As part of its recommendation, 

the Committee is reducing the amount of new budget authority 

available, and instead requiring public housing agencies [PHAs] to 

use available reserves to meet program costs. HUD is directed to 

evaluate the level of reserves or net restricted assets [NRA] that 

PHAs have available when determining allocations of new resources. The Committee expects that as HUD makes these determinations, it will ensure that PHAs have sufficient NRA to address 

any unexpected costs that may arise during 2012. 

The costs in the section 8 program are dictated in large part by 

market conditions and demands of the private market, as well as 

the behavior of the individuals in the program. Unfortunately, 

HUD has little control over these factors. However, given the budget reductions expected in future years, HUD must work to find 

ways to better control program costs, while protecting vulnerable 

tenants. In addition, HUD must improve its ability to monitor and 

predict program costs. While revisions to estimates are expected, 

large variations in estimates undermine the Committee’s ability to 

protect vulnerable tenants. 

The Committee is pleased that HUD has begun to assess opportunities to pare costs, and has requested language to make program changes that should reduce expenses. The Committee has included this language, as requested, within the HUD administrative 

provisions. These provisions include increasing the medical expense 

allowance that is used to calculate rental contributions. Taken together these provisions should provide program savings in both 

this and future years. 

Formula Adjustment.—In 2007, the Committee modified the formula for allocating resources among PHAs. This modified formula 

based allocations primarily on resource utilization during the 

course of the most recent Federal fiscal year while accounting for 

inflation. Since that time, the formula has remained fairly constant 

in order to provide consistency and stability to PHAs managing 

voucher programs. This year, the Committee is recommending a 

modification that would change the period of re-benchmarking for 

the formula allocation from the Federal fiscal year to the calendar 

year. This would align the period on which funding is based with 

how PHAs manage their programs. 

The Committee used the Federal fiscal year so that the time it 

takes for HUD to verify PHA data would not delay program allocations as PHAs begin their programs. However, this misalignment 

created other challenges to managing the program. Now that HUD 

is receiving more timely data, this delay should be minimized. 

Set-asides for Special Circumstances.—The Committee has provided a set-aside of $103,000,000 to allow the Secretary to adjust 

allocations to PHAs under certain prescribed circumstances. Since 

the funds provided to PHAs through this set-aside result in increases in future costs, the Committee has reduced the amount rerfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

111 

quested by the administration’s request of $135,000,000 by 

$32,000,000 in fiscal year 2012. The Committee believes that this 

level of funding will still allow HUD to assist PHAs that would otherwise be unable to meet the needs of program participants. The 

Committee expects this will provide the Secretary with a means of 

assisting PHAs facing unexpectedly high unemployment and loss of 

income. Qualifying factors include: (1) public housing agencies that 

have experienced a significant increase, as determined by the Secretary, in renewal costs of tenant-based rental assistance resulting 

from unforeseen circumstances and voucher utilization or the impact from portability under section 8(r) of the act; (2) public housing agencies with vouchers that were not in use during the previous 12-month period in order to be available to meet a commitment pursuant to section 8(o)(13) of the act; (3) for adjustments or 

costs associated with HUD–VASH vouchers; and (4) to continue 

vouchers for disaster victims that currently receiving rental assistance through disaster recovery programs set to expire. A PHA 

should not receive an adjustment to its allocation from the funding 

provided under this section if the Secretary determines that such 

PHA, through negligence or intentional actions, would exceed its 

authorized level. 

HUD-Veterans Affairs Supported Housing [HUD–VASH].—The 

Committee has included $75,000,000 to support 11,000 additional 

HUD–VASH vouchers consistent with the budget request. As the 

only Federal permanent supportive housing program dedicated exclusively to veterans, HUD–VASH is critical to serving veterans 

with high needs that face severe barriers to housing, especially the 

chronically homeless. According to data released by HUD and the 

Department of Veterans Affairs [VA], over 75,000 veterans were 

homeless on a single night in 2009, 43 percent of whom were living 

on the street. Given the limited number of HUD–VASH vouchers 

available, it is imperative that they are targeted to veterans most 

in need. 

Allocating vouchers to areas of greatest need is important to 

achieving the goals of ending veteran homelessness by 2015. In 

order to achieve this goal, vouchers are allocated based on the 

number of homeless veterans in an area. In conducting the analysis 

of need, the Committee directs HUD, in cooperation with the VA, 

to be mindful of the needs in rural areas. Rural areas can often 

present challenges in delivering case management services to areas 

that are far from VA Medical Centers. Moreover, the smaller number of veterans in need may make the hiring of a case manager to 

serve them impractical. However, the needs of these veterans must 

still be met. Therefore, the Committee encourages HUD, working 

with the VA, to explore ways to ensure that HUD–VASH can meet 

the needs of veterans in rural areas. For example, HUD could consider reducing the minimum allocation of vouchers a PHA could receive, which is often based on sufficient numbers to justify a case 

manager, by utilizing existing local providers to provide case management services. 

The ability to achieve the goal of ending veteran homelessness 

requires more than simply providing vouchers to areas of need. The 

ultimate success of this program will be demonstrated by veterans 

remaining housed and off the street. The Committee therefore exrfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

112 

pects HUD to work with the VA to track the stability of participating veterans, so that if housing stability isn’t being achieved 

program modifications can be made. 

The Committee notes that the HUD and the VA have been involved in a demonstration in Washington, DC, which has achieved 

improved leasing rates. These improvements have resulted from efforts by the DC Public Housing Authority to streamline many of its 

processes, including screening of clients and inspection of units. In 

addition, the city has demonstrated the importance of partnerships 

among PHAs, the VA, and local providers. The Committee expects 

HUD to share and encourage these best practices with other PHAs. 

Homelessness Demonstrations.—The administration’s fiscal year 2012 budget request included $56,906,000 for approximately 7,500 

new vouchers as part of a demonstration to leverage funding for 

services from mainstream programs such as Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families [TANF] and Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration [SAMSA]. The demonstration was 

designed to assist homeless families as well as the chronically 

homeless. Given the budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to provide funding for new vouchers for this purpose. However, 

the Committee is encouraged by the efforts of HUD, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, 

and others to improve coordination as they considered the design 

of such a demonstration. To facilitate efforts to enhance coordination and leverage services from mainstream programs, the Committee has included $5,000,000 to support the goals of the demonstration. The Committee expects that funding will be awarded to 

PHAs interested in the demonstration as a way to offset the additional costs of coordinating with various partners and providing 

case management services. The Committee expects that this demonstration will provide important lesson for how PHAs can leverage 

other service dollars to meet the needs of tenants. 

Administrative Fees and Family Self-sufficiency Coordinators.— The Committee recommends $1,400,000,000 for administrative 

fees, which is $247,780,000 less than the budget request and 

$47,100,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. However, 

the Committee has included several provisions that are expected to 

streamline requirements and reduce the administrative burden on 

PHAs. 

Mainstream Vouchers.—A total of $113,452,000 is included under 

this heading to support the renewal of vouchers previously funded 

under the heading ‘‘Housing for Persons with Disabilities’’, but 

which have long been administered by the Housing Choice Voucher 

office. The Committee began the transition of program funding 

from the ‘‘Housing for Persons with Disabilities’’ account to the 

‘‘Tenant-based Rental Assistance’’ account in fiscal year 2011. In 

the first transition year, the Committee realized a one-time savings 

since only partial funding was necessary for the contracts that expired at various points in the year. Now that all contracts are 

synced, the full yearly cost of funding existing mainstream vouchers is included under this heading. These vouchers are not included 

as part of the renewal base because the Committee wants to ensure 

that these vouchers remain dedicated to serving persons with disabilities as intended. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

113 

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥$200,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Certificate Fund until fiscal year 2005 provided 

funding for both the project-based and tenant-based components of 

the section 8 program. Project-based rental assistance and tenantbased rental assistance are now separately funded accounts. The 

Housing Certificate Fund retains balances from previous years’ appropriations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill includes a rescission of $200,000,000 from unobligated 

balances and recaptures from prior-year appropriations provided in 

the tenant-based rental assistance and the project-based rental assistance accounts or any other account within this title. This rescission is to be effected no later than September 30, 2012. 

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $2,040,112,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2,405,345,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,875,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for modernization and capital 

needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing authorities), including management improvements, resident relocation, 

and homeownership activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,875,000,000 for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is $530,345,000 less 

than the budget request and $165,112,000 less than the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level. 

Of the amount made available under this section, $50,000,000 is 

for supportive services for residents of public housing and up to 

$5,000,000 is made available to pay the costs of administrative and 

judicial receiverships. The Committee recommends up to 

$10,000,000 to support the ongoing financial and physical assessment activities primarily at the Real Estate Assessment Center 

[REAC]. This amount is $5,345,000 below the budget request because of carryover available to cover these costs. The Committee 

has also set aside $20,000,000 for emergency capital needs including safety and security measures necessary to address crime and 

drug-related activity, as well as needs resulting from unforeseen or 

unpreventable emergencies and natural disasters, excluding presidentially declared emergencies and natural disasters. The Committee reminds HUD that safety and security funding is an eligible 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

114 

use of these funds and expects the Department to fund eligible 

projects. 

The Public Housing Capital Fund supports the maintenance of 

critical affordable housing, which provides more than 1.1 million 

low-income households with safe and stable housing. Unfortunately, limited resources have affected the ability of public housing 

authorities to upgrade and preserve these facilities. The regular deferral of maintenance has resulted in a significant backlog of capital needs, which over the long-term, increase the cost of such 

maintenance, and can result in lost units. Congress recently received a report on the Capital Needs in the Public Housing Program. This study estimated the backlog of public housing capital 

improvements to be approximately $25,600,000,000 as of June 

2008, although this number does not include the $4,000,000,000 

provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for 

capital improvements. While some progress was noted since the 

last study was conducted in 1998, the backlog remains significant. 

Given the budget constraints, the Committee has included other 

provisions in the bill outside of this account to help PHAs address 

their capital needs. This language includes the Rental Assistance 

Demonstration to try and leverage non-Federal sources of funding, 

and provisions to encourage flexibility in allowing PHAs to use operating fund reserves for capital needs. 

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $4,616,748,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 3,961,850,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,961,850,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the payment of operating subsidies to approximately 3,100 public housing authorities (except Indian housing authorities) with a total of approximately 1.2 million 

units under management in order to augment rent payments by 

residents in order to provide sufficient revenues to meet reasonable 

operating costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,961,850,000 

for the public housing operating fund, which is equal to the budget 

request and $654,898,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level. Consistent with the administration’s request, the bill includes language giving the Secretary authority to offset public 

housing authorities’ [PHAs] allocations of operating funds in fiscal 

year 2012 based on excess reserves they have available to meet 

their operating needs. The Committee has limited the amount of 

reserves HUD may use as an offset to $750,000,000. The Committee has included this policy as a means of accommodating a difficult budget environment, and urges HUD to move cautiously to 

ensure that public housing authorities can continue to meet residents’ needs. 

Since this policy was first proposed by the administration, concerns have been raised about how it will affect the ability of PHAs 

to meet the needs of their properties and tenants. In evaluating 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

115 

this proposal, the Committee placed a priority on protecting PHA 

residents, and has worked to mitigate any potential negative impacts. For example, the Committee has included language ensuring 

that no PHA will see its reserves reduced below $100,000, which 

is particularly important for small PHAs. In addition, the Committee wants to ensure that PHAs have an adequate opportunity 

to appeal the offset HUD proposes. The appeals process is critical 

since a PHA may have more timely data, and the data HUD collects may not capture commitments a PHA has already made. 

In recognition of the uncertainties that come with implementing 

a new policy, as well as the outcome of the appeals process, the 

Committee has limited the amount of funding that can be offset. 

The Committee believes that this will limit the potential negative 

impact of the offset, while continuing to protect all public housing 

residents. 

Finally, the Committee is concerned about the lack of clarity on 

the eligible uses of operating fund reserves. In particular, there appears to be inconsistent guidance on how PHAs may use operating 

reserves to address capital needs. In proposing an offset, HUD felt 

compelled to send out guidance on eligible uses of operating fund 

reserves. However, in the process of distributing such guidance it 

became apparent that over the years, HUD has been inconsistent 

in determining eligible uses of these funds and PHAs felt like HUD 

was significantly changing the rules. The Committee agrees that 

clarity is needed, but encourages HUD to consider the impact of 

being too rigid in its application of this policy. Particularly in light 

of the budget challenges, and the level of funding available for the 

Public Housing Capital Fund, some flexibility is warranted so that 

capital needs can be addressed to preserve public housing and ensure the safety of residents. 

The Committee directs HUD to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations on its guidance to PHAs on eligible uses of 

operating fund reserves within 90 days of the enactment of this act. 

The Committee further directs HUD to include in its report a clear 

methodology for determining excessive reserves, as well as a strategy to better assist PHAs in assessing and managing reserves to 

the benefit of residents. To the extent HUD believes PHAs require 

technical assistance with better managing and deploying reserves, 

the Committee encourages HUD to include a proposal for such assistance in its 2012 Transformation Initiative proposal. The Committee also reminds HUD that PHAs with fewer than 250 units 

have unlimited flexibility in the use of reserves to address capital 

needs and that PHAs with greater than 250 units should be afforded adequate flexibility to enable the optimal use of limited resources to serve their residents’ needs. When formulating its plan 

and guidance, the Committee also encourages HUD to consider 

that some capital expenditures, such as installing more energy efficient appliances, may directly result in reduced operating costs and 

should therefore be afforded the most flexibility with respect to operating fund eligibility. In the interim, as HUD develops guidance 

that will be applied going forward, the Committee has included 

language giving the Secretary the flexibility to allow the use of operating fund reserves for capital improvements. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

116 

REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING [HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $99,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing [HOPE 

VI] account makes awards to public housing authorities on a competitive basis to demolish obsolete or failed developments or to revitalize, where appropriate, sites upon which these developments 

exist. This is a focused effort to eliminate public housing which 

was, in many cases, poorly located, ill-designed, and not well constructed. Such unsuitable housing has been very expensive to operate, and difficult to manage effectively due to multiple deficiencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The HOPE VI program has been a vital tool used to revitalize 

low-income neighborhoods and improve the lives of public housing 

residents. The Committee remains supportive of the goal of the 

HOPE VI program to replace severely distressed public housing 

with new housing and stronger communities. The Committee has 

included funding for the President’s proposed Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, which builds on the successes of HOPE VI and expands the program to other HUD-assisted housing. The Committee 

is therefore not recommending any additional funding for HOPE VI 

in fiscal year 2012. 

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... $250,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 120,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative provides competitive grants 

to transform impoverished neighborhoods into functioning, sustainable, mixed-income neighborhoods with co-location of appropriate 

services, schools, public assets, transportation options, and access 

to jobs or job training. The goal of the program is to demonstrate 

that concentrated and coordinated neighborhood investments from 

multiple sources can transform a distressed neighborhood and improve the quality of life of residents. 

Choice Neighborhoods grants will fund the preservation, rehabilitation, and transformation of public and HUD-assisted housing as 

well as their neighborhoods. The program builds on the successes 

of public housing transformation under HOPE VI with a broader 

approach to concentrated poverty. Grantees will include public 

housing authorities, local governments, and nonprofit organizations. For-profit developers may also apply in partnership with another eligible grantee. Grant funds can be used for resident and 

community services, community development and affordable housing activities in surrounding communities. Grantees will undertake 

comprehensive local planning with input from residents and the 

community. A strong emphasis will be placed on local community 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

117 

planning for school and educational improvements, including early 

childhood initiatives. 

The Department will place a strong emphasis on coordination 

with other Federal agencies, notably the Departments of Education, Labor, Transportation, and Health and Human Services and 

the Department of Justice, to leverage additional resources. Where 

possible, the program will be coordinated with the Department of 

Education’s Promise Neighborhoods proposal. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $120,000,000 for 

the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. This amount is $130,000,000 

less than the amount requested by the President. The fiscal year 

2011 appropriations bill included $99,800,000 for the HOPE VI program, of which up to $65,000,000 was set-aside for Choice Neighborhoods. Both HOPE VI and Choice Neighborhoods seek to address the needs of distressed housing and neighborhoods and create 

vibrant, mixed-income communities. Choice Neighborhoods seeks to 

build on the HOPE VI program by expanding the types of eligible 

grantees and allowing funding to be used on HUD-owned or assisted housing, as well as the surrounding community. 

The Committee agrees that expanding HUD’s ability to direct 

funds to revitalization efforts that reach beyond public housing will 

broaden the impact of the Department’s community revitalization 

efforts. However, the Committee notes that the work to replace distressed public housing is not yet complete. Therefore the Committee has included language that stipulates that not less than 

$80,000,000 of the funding provided shall be awarded to projects 

where public housing authorities are the lead applicant. 

Choice Neighborhoods recognizes that community transformation 

requires more than replacing housing. The creation of vibrant, sustainable communities also requires greater access to services and 

increased opportunities for community residents. However, HUD 

funding cannot support all of these activities, so the Committee 

supports the emphasis Choice Neighborhoods places on both local 

and Federal partnerships. 

In August 2011, HUD announced the first five Choice Neighborhood implementation grant recipients. The Committee was encouraged to see the partners associated with each of the selected 

projects, such as schools, workforce development agencies, and 

health clinics. In addition to local and philanthropic partners, 

Choice Neighborhoods also provides an opportunity to effectively leverage other Federal resources. The Committee notes that projects 

included resources from the Department of Education and the Department of Transportation. In light of the current and future 

budget constraints, coordination and leveraging is critical to ensuring the greatest return on Federal investment. 

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $648,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 700,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 650,000,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

118 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds the Native American Housing Block Grants 

Program, as authorized under title I of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 [NAHASDA]. 

This program provides a funding allocation on a formula basis to 

Indian tribes and their tribally designated housing entities in order 

to help address the housing needs within their communities. Under 

this block grant, Indian tribes will use performance measures and 

benchmarks that are consistent with the national goals of the program, but can base these measures on the needs and priorities established in their own Indian housing plan. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $650,000,000 for 

the Native American Housing Block Grants, of which $2,000,000 is 

set aside for a credit subsidy to support a loan level not to exceed 

$20,000,000 for the section 601 Loan Guarantee Program. The recommended level of funding is $1,300,000 more than the level provided in fiscal year 2011 and $51,300,000 less than the budget request. 

As the Nation struggles with high unemployment and economic 

challenges, the Committee recognizes that these challenges have 

long plagued Native Americans. The most recent data suggests 

that Native Americans are twice as likely to live in poverty as the 

rest of the Nation. As a result, the housing challenges on tribal 

lands are daunting. For example, nearly three times as many Native Americans live in overcrowded housing as compared to the rest 

of the Nation. 

Consultation With Tribes on Housing Needs Assessment.—In fiscal year 2010, Congress required HUD to conduct a housing needs 

assessment for Native Americans, including a review of how sustainable building practices can be used in Native American communities. The Committee intends for this assessment to take a comprehensive look at the housing needs and challenges facing Native 

American tribes. This document should provide a quantifiable assessment of need, but it should also look at both barriers and opportunities in addressing their housing needs. In order to ensure 

the most usable and informative document, the Committee expects 

HUD to consult with Native American tribes in conducting this 

evaluation, consistent with Executive Order 13175. In order to ensure a broad array of perspectives, the Committee also expects 

HUD to provide technical assistance that will enable tribes to participate, especially smaller tribes with limited access to data. 

Technical Assistance.—The Committee continues to include 

$3,500,000 for technical assistance through a national organization 

representing Native American housing interests, and $4,250,000 

for inspections of Indian housing units, contract expertise, training, 

technical assistance, oversight, and management. 

The Committee noted GAO’s determination that limited capacity 

hinders the ability of many tribes to effectively address their housing needs. The Committee expects HUD to use the technical assistance funding provided to aid tribes with capacity challenges, especially tribes receiving small grant awards. The funding should be 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

119 

used for training, contract expertise, and other services necessary 

to improve data collection, increase leveraging, and address other 

needs identified by tribes. The Committee expects that any assistance provided by HUD will reflect the unique needs and culture of 

Native Americans. 

As HUD works to address the needs of tribes, and especially 

smaller tribes, the Committee hopes that HUD will look to identify 

opportunities to coordinate with other agencies, including the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $12,974,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide 

grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home 

Lands for housing and housing-related assistance, in order to develop, maintain, and operate affordable housing for eligible low-income Native Hawaiian families. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,000,000 for 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program, which is 

$3,000,000 more than the budget request and equal to the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level. Of the amount provided, $300,000 shall be 

for training and technical assistance activities, including up to 

$100,000 for related travel for Hawaii-based HUD employees. 

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account 

Limitation on 

guaranteed 

loans 

Appropriations, 2011 .......................................................................................................... $6,986,000 $919,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................................................... 7,000,000 428,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 7,000,000 428,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for Indian families, Indian tribes, and their tribally designated housing entities 

that otherwise could not acquire housing financing because of the 

unique status of Indian trust land. As required by the Federal 

Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account includes the subsidy costs 

associated with the loan guarantees authorized under this program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,000,000 in 

program subsidies to support a loan level of $428,000,000. This 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

120 

subsidy amount is equal to the budget request and the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account 

Limitation on 

guaranteed 

loans 

Appropriations, 2011 .......................................................................................................... $1,042,000 $41,504,255 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................................................... .......................... ..........................

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 386,000 41,504,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for Native Hawaiians who otherwise could not acquire housing finance because 

of the unique status of the Hawaiian Home Lands as trust land. 

As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account 

includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees authorized under this program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $386,000 in program subsidies to support a loan level of $41,504,000, which is 

equal to the subsidy and loan levels provided in fiscal year 2011. 

The budget request did not include any subsidy to support this program. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $334,330,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 335,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 330,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS [HOPWA] 

program provides States and localities with resources and incentives to devise long-term, comprehensive strategies for meeting the 

housing and supportive service needs of persons living with HIV/ 

AIDS and their families. 

Statutorily, 90 percent of formula-appropriated funds are distributed to qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the basis of the 

number of AIDS cases reported to the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention by March 31 of the year preceding the appropriation year. The remaining 10 percent of funds are distributed 

through a national competition. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $330,000,000 for 

the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA] program. This level of funding is $5,000,000 less than the President’s 

budget request and $4,330,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enrfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

121 

acted level. The Committee continues to include language requiring 

HUD to allocate these funds in a manner that preserves existing 

HOPWA programs, to the extent that those programs are determined to be meeting the needs of persons with AIDS. 

The HOPWA program currently provides short-term and permanent housing assistance and stabilizing supportive services to more 

than 60,600 households in 134 eligible areas nationwide. Of the 

households receiving assistance, over 90 percent have extremely 

low or very low incomes. According to grantee annual reports from 

2010, 13 percent of new clients, representing 2,305 households, 

were homeless at program entry. 

The HOPWA program has proven effective at helping individuals 

with HIV/AIDS avoid homelessness and achieve housing stability. 

Research has demonstrated that stable housing provides a foundation for recipients to improve health, increase economic security, 

and move toward self-sufficiency. Grantees report that 94 percent 

of households receiving assistance in 2010 achieved housing stability and 73 percent of households receiving supportive services 

successfully accessed or maintained sources of income. 

Research also demonstrates that housing assistance and support 

services are a cost effective alternative to hospitalization, emergency room services, and other higher levels of care. A Chicago 

Housing for Health Partnership study reports that supportive 

housing efforts cost an average of $34 per day, compared to hospitalization costs of $2,168 per day or nursing care at $108 per day. 

Furthermore, research indicates that housing is a primary factor in 

promoting HIV prevention and in helping to avoid the lifetime 

costs of infection, estimated at over $600,000. These costs would 

largely fall on public systems for low-income/HOPWA eligible 

households. 

While the HOPWA program has demonstrated success, there is 

still substantial work to be done to meet the housing demand of 

low-income persons with HIV/AIDS. HOPWA grantees report they 

are only able to directly address about 29 percent of the identified 

eligible housing need at program’s current funding level. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $3,500,984,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 3,781,368,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,001,027,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award block 

grants to units of general local government and States for the funding of local community development programs. A wide range of 

physical, economic, and social development activities are eligible 

with spending priorities determined at the local level, but the law 

enumerates general objectives which the block grants are designed 

to fulfill, including adequate housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities, principally for persons 

of low and moderate income. Grant recipients are required to use 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

122 

at least 70 percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. 

Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective formulas, one 

of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age of housing 

stock. Of the funds appropriated, 70 percent are distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting designated amounts for setasides. 

The resources provided as part of this program will also fund the 

Sustainable Communities Initiative, a joint HUD-Department of 

Transportation [DOT] effort to improve coordination of transportation and housing investments that result in more regional and 

local sustainable development patterns, reduced greenhouse gas 

emissions, and more transit accessible housing choices for residents. These funds will stimulate more integrated regional planning to guide State, metropolitan, and local decisions, investments, 

and reforms in land use, transportation, and housing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,001,027,000 

for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2012. This 

level is $780,341,000 less than the budget request and 

$499,957,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

The Committee has provided $2,851,027,000 for Community Development Block Grants. This funding provides States and entitlement communities across the Nation with resources that allow 

them to undertake a wide range of community development activities, including public infrastructure improvements, housing rehabilitation and construction, job creation and retention, and public 

services that primarily benefit low and moderate income persons. 

The Committee includes $60,000,000 for grants to Indian tribes 

for essential economic and community development activities which 

is $5,000,000 below the budget request and the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

Sustainable Communities Initiative.—The Committee has recommended $90,000,000 to support the President’s Sustainable 

Communities Initiative. The funding provided will support an 

interagency collaboration among HUD, DOT, and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. The resources provided include: 

$63,000,000 for Regional Integrated Planning grants and 

$27,000,000 for Community Challenge Planning grants. 

Sustainability in Rural Communities.—The Committee continues 

a set-aside of at least $15,750,000 within the Regional Integrated 

Planning Grants funding for smaller communities to ensure that 

planning assistance will be provided to all types of communities. 

The Committee supports HUD’s recognition of the needs of smaller 

communities, including the additional set-aside it has created for 

communities with a population of less than 200,000. The Committee expects HUD to continue to pay special attention to the 

unique needs of small and rural communities that would also benefit from coordinated transportation and housing planning. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

123 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT DISASTER FUNDING

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $400,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $400,000,000 in Disaster Relief funding for the Community Development Block Grant 

[CDBG] program to assist communities impacted by major disasters in 2011 with long-term recovery. The funding may be used by 

communities to address recovery needs including those related to 

infrastructure, housing and economic development. The funding 

will be provided directly to States or local units of government, who 

will submit a plan for the use of such funds. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Program account 

Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2011 .......................................................................................................... $5,988,000 $275,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................................................... .......................... 500,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 4,960,000 200,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal loan 

guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and nonentitlement communities to cover the costs of acquiring real property, rehabilitation of publicly owned real property, housing rehabilitation, and other economic development activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has recommended an appropriation of $4,960,000 

to support a loan level guarantee of $200,000,000 for the section 

108 loan guarantees account for fiscal year 2012. This guaranteed 

loan level is $75,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 level. 

This loan level is $225,000,000 less than the President’s request. 

However, the President proposed to charge fees for this program, 

which the Committee has not approved. 

This program enables Community Development Block Grant 

[CDBG] recipients to use their CDBG dollars as leverage as part 

of economic development projects and housing rehabilitation programs. Communities are allowed to borrow up to five times their 

most recent CDBG allocation. 

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $1,606,780,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,650,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

124 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This program provides assistance to States and local governments for the 

purpose of expanding the supply and affordability of housing to 

low-income and very low-income people. Eligible activities include 

tenant-based rental assistance, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing, and housing construction. 

To participate in the HOME program, State and local governments 

must develop a comprehensive housing affordability strategy. There 

is a 25 percent matching requirement for participating jurisdictions, which can be reduced or eliminated if they are experiencing 

fiscal distress. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000,000 

for the HOME Investment Partnership Program. This amount is 

$606,780,000 below the funding level provided in fiscal year 2011, 

and $650,000,000 below the budget request. 

Earlier this year, the Washington Post did an investigative report on the HOME program focusing on stalled and delayed 

projects. The series highlighted several egregious examples of misuse of Federal funding. The Committee is deeply concerned by the 

abuses outlined in the report. At the same time, the examples represent a tiny fraction of HOME program projects. The Committee 

recognizes that the HOME program is an important tool for increasing the access to and affordability of housing for low-income 

Americans, a program that has successfully created over 1 million 

units of housing. 

There is a pressing need nationally for the support the HOME 

program provides to communities. HUD recently issued The Worst 

Case Housing Needs 2009: A Report to Congress, which highlighted 

the startling statistic that over 7 million people now spend more 

than 50 percent of their income on rent, live in substandard housing, or both. The report’s findings underscore how critical it is that 

scarce Federal resources be used effectively to meet the increasing 

need for affordable housing. 

In an effort to address the concerns raised by the Washington 

Post stories, the Committee requested the HUD Office of Inspector 

General [OIG] identify measures that would address program 

weaknesses. As part of its work, the OIG examined revisions to 

program rules that HUD is considering. The Committee has included several new requirements in the HOME program that the 

OIG has identified as a priority for mitigating program risk. These 

include discontinuing or recapturing funds for projects not completed within 4 years of commitment, instituting new requirements 

before program funds can be committed to a project to ensure that 

it is viable and has been properly underwritten, requiring adequate 

development capacity of community housing development organizations, and requiring that homeownership units that can’t be sold 

will be available to rent to eligible tenants. HUD has already taken 

steps to improve program management and oversight, and the 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

125 

Committee encourages it to continue to work with the OIG to 

strengthen and improve the HOME program. 

Program Oversight.—The Committee believes that the additional 

requirements it has included in the bill will strengthen the HOME 

program, but the oversight of grantees is critical. The Committee 

is encouraged that HUD is using Transformation Initiative funding 

to update the systems it relies on to monitor the activities and performance of grantees, which is consistent with recommendations by 

the OIG. The Committee expects that the system improvements 

will strengthen HUD’s ability to monitor the large number of 

HOME grantees. However, the Committee reminds HUD that adequate oversight of the program requires engagement by HUD staff, 

particularly those in the field. For example, HUD has instituted an 

auto-cancellation system designed to halt projects that are stalled. 

While these automated checks are an improvement, they are tools 

to help manage oversight, and their value comes in how effectively 

they are utilized by HUD staff. In addition, since the success of 

projects can be directly affected by market conditions, sufficient 

monitoring is necessary to distinguish between project delays that 

are a result of grant mismanagement versus those due to market 

conditions. To ensure that adequate oversight occurs, the Committee directs HUD to report to the Committees on Appropriations 

within 120 days of enactment of this act on how HUD is monitoring and evaluating grantee performance, including how participating jurisdictions can get approval to restart a stalled or cancelled project. 

Finally, the Committee is concerned about project funds that 

were awarded over 10 years ago for projects that are still not complete. The Committee has included language in a separate part of 

the bill calling on HUD to rescind certain funds provided prior to 

2011. The Committee expects that HUD will rescind these decadeold HOME balances. In addition, the Committee directs HUD to 

provide a report by March 16, 2012, and annually thereafter, on all 

HUD funds that are 5 years old or older. 

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $81,836,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 57,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program is comprised of the Self-Help Homeownership Program 

[SHOP], which assists low-income homebuyers willing to contribute 

‘‘sweat equity’’ toward the construction of their houses. The funds 

will increase nonprofit organizations’ ability to leverage funds from 

other sources and produce approximately 2,000 new homeownership units. This account also includes funding for the Capacity 

Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing Program, as well as assistance to rural communities as authorized 

under sections 6301 through 6305 of Public Law 110–246. These 

programs help to develop the capacity of nonprofit community development entities to undertake community development and affordable housing projects. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

126 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $57,000,000 for the Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Program, which is $57,000,000 more than 

the budget request and $24,836,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 

enacted level. The Committee has included $17,000,000 for the 

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program authorized under 

section 11 of the Housing Opportunity Extension Act of 1996. The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for capacity building as 

authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993, 

and notes that funding provided under this section requires a statutory 3-to-1 match to further leverage resources to assist more 

communities. The Committee provides $5,000,000 to carry out capacity building activities in rural communities. 

During this economic crisis, the need for affordable housing has 

only increased. Congress has provided funding through programs 

such as the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to create additional affordable housing and support economic development in 

communities across the Nation, especially those hardest hit by the 

foreclosure crisis and recession. However, the success of these efforts relies in large part on the capacity of States, local governments, and organizations to develop and implement effective housing and community development plans. The funding recommended 

under this program is intended to ensure that these communities 

have the skills and technical capabilities necessary to undertake effective community development activities. In addition, resources 

have been targeted to rural communities to address their unique 

needs and challenges. 

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $1,901,190,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2,372,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,901,190,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Homeless Assistance Grants Program provides funding to 

break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons and 

families to permanent housing. This is done by providing rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and permanent housing, 

prevention, rapid re-housing, and supportive services to homeless 

persons and families. The emergency solutions grant is a formula 

funded grant program, while the Continuum of Care and Rural 

Housing Stability Programs are competitive grants. Homeless assistance grants provide Federal support to one of the Nation’s most 

vulnerable populations. These grants assist localities in addressing 

the housing and service needs of a wide variety of homeless populations while developing coordinated Continuum of Care [CoC] systems that ensure the support necessary to help those who are 

homeless to attain housing and move toward self-sufficiency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,901,190,000 

for Homeless Assistance Grants in fiscal year 2012. This amount 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

127 

is $470,810,000 less than the President’s request, and equal to the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted level. As part of the Committee recommendation, $1,602,190,000 will 

support the Continuum of Care Program, including the renewal of 

existing projects, and the new Rural Housing Stability Assistance 

Program. The recommendation also includes at least $286,000,000 

for the emergency solutions grants program, representing an increase of $61,000,000 over the level provided in fiscal year 2011. 

This increased funding will allow communities to take advantage 

of the additional flexibility provided under the Homeless Emergency and Rapid Transition to Housing [HEARTH] Act to do prevention and rapid re-housing. The Committee notes that this increase is possible within the current funding level because more 

updated renewal estimates are lower than anticipated in the budget request. 

In June 2011, HUD released the 2010 Annual Homeless Assessment Report [AHAR] to Congress, which estimated that 1.6 million 

persons experienced homelessness in fiscal year 2010. The data 

show that as a result of targeted investments in permanent housing, the number of chronically homeless individuals has decreased 

11 percent since 2007. The Committee continues to support efforts 

to create permanent supportive housing, and is encouraged by the 

use of existing programs such as section 8 to continue to address 

the needs of the chronically homeless. 

Unfortunately, the data also show the impact of the recession on 

low-income families. Since 2007, family homelessness has increased 

20 percent, and the number of people using homeless shelters in 

suburban and rural areas has increased 57 percent. According to 

the report, families now represent a larger share of the shelter population than ever before. This report provides an important guide 

for how federal resources can be more effectively targeted to meet 

current needs. Importantly, the HEARTH Act authorized new programs and activities, such as the Emergency Solutions Grant 

[ESG] program and the Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program that will make it possible to better address the needs of 

homeless families and rural communities. Based on the AHAR 

data, the Committee is recommending increased investments in 

these new programs to respond to current needs. 

Increased funding for ESG is particularly important as communities run out of funding provided through the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act for the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid 

Re-Housing Program [HPRP]. According to data HUD has gathered 

from grantees, as of June 30, 2011, HPRP has served over 

1,050,000 people, and 94 percent of those exited the program into 

permanent housing. Compared with many other interventions, prevention and rapid re-housing assistance is typically shorter in duration and less expensive. In addition, preventing or reducing time 

families spend in homelessness helps avoid the negative effects on 

children that are associated with prolonged time in the homeless 

system. Since ESG builds on HPRP, resources dedicated to ESG 

are able to better serve a greater number of people at less cost. At 

a time when millions of Americans are struggling with unemployment, but fewer federal resources are available to serve them, the 

Committee believes that ESG represents a sound investment. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

128 

For many communities, HPRP represented the first time that 

prevention or rapid re-housing strategies were deployed. The Committee notes that as compared with prevention activities, people receiving rapid re-housing assistance often had a shorter length of 

participation, despite the fact that people were moving from homelessness to housing. As HUD evaluates this and other outcomes of 

HRPR, the Committee encourages it to examine and compare the 

benefits of each intervention and share best practices with grantees 

so that communities can adjust their strategies to most effectively 

use ESG to serve those most in need. 

Annual Homeless Assessment Report [AHAR].—The Annual 

Homeless Assessment Report stems from congressional directives 

begun in 2001 that charged the Department with collecting homeless data through the implementation of a new Homeless Management Information System [HMIS]. The AHAR report includes 

HMIS data, information provided by Continuums of Care, and a 

count of sheltered and unsheltered persons from one night in January of each year. The Committee is encouraged that federal agencies are sharing homeless data and working towards using HMIS 

as a platform for gathering homeless information in other Federal 

programs. As a result of these efforts, HUD and the VA released 

a joint report on veteran homelessness in February 2011. This was 

the first time that there has been a common national figure on veteran homelessness. To support continued data collection and the 

AHAR report, the Committee has included $8,000,000 for data 

analysis and technical assistance. 

The Committee requests that HUD submit the AHAR report by 

June 14, 2012. The Committee further hopes that HUD’s efforts to 

increase participation in the HMIS effort will lead to improved information about and understanding of the Nation’s homeless. 

Renewal Costs.—The Committee directs HUD to continue to include 5-year projections of the costs of renewing existing projects 

as part of the fiscal year 2013 budget justification. This should include estimated costs of renewing permanent supportive housing. 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 1 ........................................................................... $9,264,563,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 1 ......................................................................... 9,428,672,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 9,418,672,000 

1 Includes an advance appropriation. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Section 8 project-based rental assistance provides a rental subsidy to a private landlord that is tied to a specific housing unit, as 

opposed to a voucher, which allows a recipient to seek a unit, subject primarily to certain rent caps. Amounts in this account include 

funding for the renewal of and amendments to expiring section 8 

project-based contracts, including section 8, moderate rehabilitation, and single room occupancy [SRO] housing. This account also 

provides funds for contract administrators. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

129 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 

$9,418,672,000 for the annual renewal of project-based contracts, of 

which up to $289,000,000 is for the cost of contract administrators. 

The recommended level of funding is $154,109,000 more than the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2011 and $10,000,000 less than the 

budget request. 

The section 8 project-based rental assistance [PBRA] program 

provides more than 1,200,000 low-income Americans with safe, stable and sanitary housing. For many years, the program was 

plagued by inadequate budgets that threatened this supply of affordable housing. Moreover, the policy of short-funding contracts, 

devised to keep the program within its budget, jeopardized the Department’s credibility. Congress provided significant resources 

through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to address 

this shortfall in order to enable HUD to fully fund contracts. Sufficient funding was then provided in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to 

continue this practice. Now that the program is on sound footing, 

it is imperative for HUD to focus its attention on improving program management to preserve this housing while better controlling 

costs. 

The annual growth in the cost of providing PBRA is driven by 

both the first-time renewal of expiring contracts and an operating 

cost adjustment factor [OCAF] intended to account for increased 

costs in operating housing units. The Committee supports HUD’s 

revised methodology for determining the OFAC in order to utilize 

more recent data sources for the cost component categories. This 

ensures the OCAF more closely reflects actual operating expenses, 

minimizes upward bias, and prevents large fluctuations in the rate 

from year to year. The Committee directs HUD to include detailed 

information on OCAF, the number of contracts, and the required 

funding associated with the first-time renewal of expiring contracts 

and subsequent years in its fiscal year 2013 congressional justification. In addition, the Committee expects HUD to highlight the 

steps it is taking to curb PBRA’s cost growth. 

The Committee is concerned with the lack of transparency and 

communication in the recent award of contracts for project-based 

rental assistance contract administrators. HUD is directed to provide consistent information to all applicants in a timely manner. 

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $399,200,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 757,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 369,627,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds housing for the elderly under section 202. 

Under this program, the Department provides capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of 

housing for seniors, and provides project-based rental assistance 

contracts [PRAC] to support operational costs for such units. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

130 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $369,627,000 for the section 202 program. This level is $387,373,000 below the budget request and $29,573,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level. The Committee recommends $91,000,000 for service coordinators and the continuation of existing congregate service grants and 

up to $20,000,000 for the conversion of projects to assisted living 

housing, or for substantial rehabilitation for emergency capital repairs. 

The section 202 program provides 385,749 federally assisted, privately owned affordable apartments for the elderly. An additional 

15,739 housing units are expected to become available in future 

years as the construction of new developments is completed, using 

funding appropriated in prior years. However, the Committee recognizes that the supply of affordable housing to assist low-income 

elderly is insufficient to meet current demand. The shortage is expected to increase for the foreseeable future as the number of 

Americans aged 65 and older grows. The Seniors Commission 

projects that by 2020, there will be an estimated 1.3 million elderly 

with incomes at or below 150 percent of poverty. Unfortunately, 

due to severe budget constraints, the Committee is unable to continue to invest in the construction of new housing units. Assuming 

the current average per-unit rental assistance rate, the section 202 

program will need at least an additional $58,000,000 to fund rental 

assistance contracts in future years, as housing units under construction become available for occupancy. Knowing that budgets 

will only become more constrained over time, the construction of 

new units is not financially sustainable. 

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $149,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 196,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 150,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for housing for the persons with 

disabilities under section 811. Under this program, the Department 

provides capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing for persons with disabilities. 

Funding may be made available for project-based rental assistance 

contracts [PRAC] to support operational costs for such units. Funding for mainstream vouchers, formerly funded under this heading, 

has been moved to the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance account. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $150,000,000 for 

the section 811 program. This level is $46,000,000 less than the 

budget request and $300,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. Due to severe discretionary budget constraints, no 

funds are provided for capital assistance to construct new affordable housing units for persons with disabilities. However, this level 

of funding supports Project Rental Assistance Contract renewals 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

131 

and amendments, and allows the Secretary to conduct a demonstration program for project rental assistance to State housing finance agencies and other appropriate entities as authorized under 

section 811(b)(3) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 

Housing Act. 

HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... $88,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 60,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Counseling Assistance Program provides comprehensive housing counseling services to eligible homeowners and 

tenants through grants to nonprofit intermediaries, State government entities, and other local and national agencies. Eligible counseling activities include pre- and postpurchase education, personal 

financial management, reverse mortgage product education, foreclosure prevention, mitigation, and rental counseling. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $60,000,000 for the Housing Counseling Assistance program, which is $28,000,000 

less than the budget request and $60,000,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level. The Committee has restored funding for 

housing counseling assistance, which was eliminated in fiscal year 

2011. The funds provided will help individuals and families across 

the country make better-informed housing decisions. The Committee has included language requiring HUD to obligate counseling 

grants within 120 days of enactment of this act to ensure that 

funding is made quickly available to clients in need of services. 

The Housing Counseling Assistance program serves a range of 

clients and needs. Those receiving counseling include distressed 

homeowners facing delinquency or foreclosure, seniors seeking a 

Home Equity Conversion Mortgage [HECM], low-income renters 

seeking affordable housing, as well as prospective homebuyers looking to purchase their first home. By design, this program allows 

local agencies to provide the type of counseling services their clients need. 

As a result of the housing crisis, foreclosure prevention counseling is in great demand, especially as distressed homeowners try 

to navigate the loan modification process. The Committee notes 

that the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling [NFMC] program, funded through NeighborWorks, provides targeted, supplemental funding to help counselors respond to the current, elevated 

demand for foreclosure counseling. Therefore, there will be some instances that grantees will utilize both programs to meet client 

needs. However, the Committee encourages HUD to work with 

NeighborWorks to reduce duplication in the allocation of resources. 

In addition, the Committee encourages HUD to prioritize funding 

for counseling activities that aren’t supported through NFMC without limiting the availability of counseling services to those in need. 

Program Reforms.—The Committee is aware that HUD is working to address concerns that have been raised about the operation 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

132 

and management of its housing counseling program. The Committee supports the reforms HUD is considering, which include 

streamlining the grant process, adopting a risk-based approach to 

conducting oversight, and collecting client level data to better 

measure the outcomes of HUD counseling expenditures. The Committee expects HUD to implement changes quickly, and directs it 

to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the reforms and their expected outcomes within 90 

days of enactment of this act. 

OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $39,920,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 15,733,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,300,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides amendment funding for housing assisted 

under a variety of HUD housing programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,300,000 for HUD-assisted, Stateaided, noninsured rental housing projects, which is $14,433,000 

less than the budget request and $38,620,000 less than the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level. The Committee is reducing this amount 

based on carryover balances available to meet this need in fiscal 

year 2012. 

RENT SUPPLEMENT

(RESCISSION)

The Committee recommends a rescission of $231,600,000 for section 236 payments to State-aided, noninsured projects, which is 

$225,000,000 more than the requested rescission and $191,000,000 

more than the rescission taken in fiscal year 2011. 

FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized 

HUD to establish a revolving fund for the collection of rents in excess of the established basic rents for section 236 projects. Subject 

to appropriations, HUD is authorized to transfer excess rent collection received after 1978 to the Flexible Subsidy Fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve 

as the repository for the excess rental charges appropriated from 

the Rental Housing Assistance Fund; these funds will continue to 

offset flexible subsidy outlays and other discretionary expenditures 

to support affordable housing projects. The language is designed to 

allow surplus funds in excess of allowable rent levels to be rerfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

133 

turned to project owners only for purposes of the rehabilitation and 

renovation of projects. 

MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $15,982,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 14,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 

Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 

Improvement Act of 2000, authorizes the Secretary to establish 

Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 

the construction, design, and performance of manufactured homes. 

All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs of administering the act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $9,000,000 to support the manufactured housing standards programs, of which $4,000,000 is expected 

to be derived from fees collected and deposited in the Manufactured 

Housing Fees Trust Fund account and not more than $5,000,000 

shall be available from the general fund. The total amount recommended is $5,000,000 below the budget request and $6,982,000 

below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

The Committee continues language allowing the Department to 

collect fees from program participants for the dispute resolution 

and installment programs mandated by the Manufactured Housing 

Improvement Act of 2000. These fees are to be deposited into the 

Trust Fund and may be used to support the manufactured housing 

standards programs subject to the overall cap placed on the account. The Committee expects the Department to move forward 

with this authority. 

The Committee recognizes that manufactured housing production 

has declined substantially since peak industry production in 1998, 

and has continued to decline in 2011 due to a variety of factors. Expenditures supporting the programs should reflect and correspond 

with this decline, which has specifically reduced the number of inspections and inspection hours required for new units. The Committee recommends an increase in the amount allocated to State 

Administrative Agencies [SAAs] to at least $3,300,000, which is 

$500,000 more than the level provided in fiscal year 2011, to maintain State participation in the programs. 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation on direct loans Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Administrative contract expenses 

Appropriations, 2011 ......................................................... $50,000,000 $400,000,000,000 $206,586,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ...................................................... 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 230,000,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................. 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 206,586,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

134 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation on direct 

loans 

Limitation on 

guaranteed loans Program costs 

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................... $20,000,000 $20,000,000,000 $8,583,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ............................................................ 20,000,000 25,000,000,000 8,600,000 

Committee recommendation .................................................... 20,000,000 25,000,000,000 ............................

1 Administrative expenses for GSR are funded within the Office of Housing. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the 

mortgage and loan insurance activity of HUD mortgage/loan insurance programs. These include the mutual mortgage insurance 

[MMI] fund, cooperative management housing insurance [CMHI] 

fund, general insurance fund [GI] fund, and the special risk insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and accounting control purposes, 

these are divided into two sets of accounts based on shared characteristics. The unsubsidized insurance programs of the mutual mortgage insurance fund and the cooperative management housing insurance fund constitute one set; and the general risk insurance and 

special risk insurance funds, which are partially composed of subsidized programs, make up the other. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has included the following amounts for the ‘‘Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program’’ account: a limitation on guaranteed loans of $400,000,000,000; a limitation on direct loans of 

$50,000,000; and $206,586,000 for administrative contract expenses, of which up to $70,652,000 may be transferred to the Working Capital Fund to be used solely for the maintenance of FHA information technology systems. 

For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends 

$25,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans and a limitation on direct loans of $20,000,000. 

Since its inception in 1934, the FHA has played a critical role in 

meeting the demands of borrowers that the private market would 

not serve—creating housing products that have insured over 34 

million homes. 

Since the foreclosure crisis began, FHA’s presence in the housing 

market has expanded dramatically. FHA has provided mortgage insurance to eligible first time homebuyers as well as existing homeowners seeking to refinance, enabling millions of Americans to take 

advantage of low interest rates and affordable home prices. In this 

role, FHA has provided much-needed liquidity to the market. Yet, 

this increased role comes with its own risks. Last fall, FHA reported that its capital reserve remained below the 2 percent required by Congress. 

Even as FHA worked to fill the place in the market after private 

capital left, it recognized and took steps to mitigate risk and improve FHA’s financial standing. It established the Office of Risk 

Management and Regulatory Affairs headed by FHA’s first Chief 

Risk Officer. 

In addition to an enhanced focus on risk, FHA has also made 

several policy changes to improve the quality of its portfolio, includrfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

135 

ing establishing minimum FICO scores, increasing downpayment 

requirements for riskier borrowers, and expanding enforcement authorities. FHA has also increased annual premiums on FHA-insured mortgages. Increased premiums will provide FHA with additional revenue to offset future losses and help to ensure that the 

American taxpayer is not forced to subsidize the cost of FHA. 

While FHA is appropriately focusing on attracting quality borrowers, it is also stepping up enforcement against fraudulent and 

predatory lenders. Since 2009, FHA has moved to suspend or remove lenders from the program that have violated FHA rules and 

subjected the agency—and the taxpayer—to increased losses. In fiscal year 2010, the Mortgage Review Board considered 1,640 cases 

and withdrew approval of 1,318 lenders and suspend 2 more. From 

2000 to 2008, the average number of cases considered was 50 with 

actions taken against 12 lenders, on average. This focus on enforcement must continue, since FHA’s larger role in the market makes 

it more vulnerable to fraudulent and predatory lenders. The Committee also expects FHA to continue working with the OIG to hold 

fraudulent lenders accountable and recoup losses to the MMI Fund. 

The Committee notes that HUD’s portfolio of Real Estate Owned 

[REO] properties has increased in recent years due to elevated levels of foreclosures. As a result of decreased home values, and the 

cost associated with maintaining these properties, REOs are a 

drain on HUD’s finances. The Committee notes that the administration is seeking ways to reduce its supply of REO properties, including options to convert them to rental properties. The Committee is encouraged by the administration’s efforts to work with 

the private sector to find solutions that could minimize FHA’s 

losses on these homes, while addressing needs in the housing market. 

Multifamily Housing.—As a result of the housing crisis, many 

Americans are exiting homeownership or delaying their purchase of 

a home. This has caused increase demand for multifamily housing, 

as evidence by falling vacancy rates. The private sector is seeking 

to address this increased demand, and according to U.S. Census 

data through July, permits for multifamily buildings are up 12 percent from 2010. Consequently, demand for FHA multifamily loans 

has also increased. According to HUD, this year, FHA has endorsed 

more than seven times the number of loans the agency endorsed 

just 3 years ago. In an effort to respond to this increased demand, 

HUD is streamlining its multifamily processes and updating its 

programs to address current market conditions. The Committee 

also expects FHA to increase its attention to the additional risk 

this volume brings, and expects FHA to dedicate the same level of 

attention to risks in the multifamily program as it has to risks in 

its single family program. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

136 

GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Limitation on 

personnel, 

compensation and 

administrative 

expenses 

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................................... $500,000,000,000 ( 1 ) 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................................... 500,000,000,000 $30,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................................... 500,000,000,000 20,000,000 

1 In fiscal year 2011, funding for personnel, compensation and administrative expenses of Ginnie Mae were provided under the Management 

and Administration heading. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Government National Mortgage Association [Ginnie Mae], 

through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. Ginnie Mae 

is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United States 

within the Department. Its powers are prescribed generally by title 

III of the National Housing Act, as amended. Ginnie Mae is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to guarantee the timely payment 

of principal and interest on securities that are based on and backed 

by a trust, or pool, composed of mortgages that are guaranteed and 

insured by the Federal Housing Administration [FHA], the Rural 

Housing Service, or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ginnie 

Mae’s guarantee of mortgage-backed securities is backed by the full 

faith and credit of the United States. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments 

on mortgage-backed securities of $500,000,000,000. This level is the 

same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2011 level. 

Since the near collapse of the private mortgage market, homeowners have relied on Federal programs, such as FHA, to purchase 

or refinance homes. Given that Ginnie Mae serves as a secondary 

market for FHA, its market share has also grown dramatically. In 

2007, Ginnie Mae’s market share was just over 5 percent, today it 

is nearly 23 percent. The Committee understands the important 

role that Ginnie Mae as well as FHA are currently playing in providing liquidity to the housing market. However, this increased role 

cannot come at the price of greater risk for the American taxpayer. 

The HUD Inspector General has raised concerns about Ginnie 

Mae’s focus on risk, particularly its ability to identify fraudulent 

lenders. The Committee notes that the leadership at Ginnie Mae 

has taken positive steps to address potential risks, including bringing on additional staff to focus on risk. The Committee expects 

Ginne Mae to work closely with the Office of the Inspector General 

to implement measures that will strengthen risk management 

practices. 

New Funding Structure.—The Committee has included bill language that will give Ginnie Mae the authority to use up to 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

137 

$20,000,000 in fees it collects to support its operations. The fees 

that will be used to cover these expenses are currently being collected by Ginnie Mae, but have not previously been reflected in the 

budget. As a result of this change, Ginnie Mae will no longer require discretionary funding for staffing and administrative expenses. This new structure is similar to that proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget. 

Importantly, by placing a limitation on how much funding Ginnie 

Mae can utilize for staffing and administrative costs, Congress will 

maintain necessary oversight of Ginnie Mae. When compared to direct appropriations provided to Ginnie Mae in fiscal year 2011, the 

limitation provided in fiscal year 2012 represents an increase of 

$3,027,289 in the amount of operations funding. The potential risk 

to the taxpayers as a result of the Ginnie Mae’s increased volume 

demands adequate staff to oversee its portfolio. The Committee expects these increased resources to be used to hire staff that will 

help Ginnie Mae manage its increased portfolio, particularly staff 

who will directly improve Ginnie Mae’s ability to detect, monitor, 

and mitigate potential risks in the program. While the Committee 

notes that Ginnie Mae has improved its ability to recruit, it continues to encounter challenges in hiring and retaining staff. Therefore, the Committee directs Ginnie Mae to provide the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations with quarterly staffing reports so the Committees can monitor its progress in maintaining 

an adequate workforce. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $47,904,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 57,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 45,825,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as 

amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development to undertake programs of research, evaluation, 

and reports relating to the Department’s mission and programs. 

These functions are carried out internally and through grants and 

contracts with industry, nonprofit research organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements with State and local 

governments and other Federal agencies. The research programs 

seek ways to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of 

HUD programs and to identify methods to achieve cost reductions. 

Additionally, this appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation 

and monitoring activities and to conduct housing surveys. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $45,825,000 for 

research, technology, and community development activities in fiscal year 2012. This level is $2,079,000 less than the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level and $11,175,000 less than the budget request. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

138 

The Committee recommendation does not include funding for the 

doctoral research grant program, or proposed new activities such as 

the young scholars post doctoral program. Since most program 

funding is dedicated to on-going surveys utilized by the Federal 

Government as well as private entities, the Committee expects reductions will be achieved through cuts to dissemination and research support activities. 

The Committee supports the administration’s focus on collecting 

and utilizing data to develop housing policy. However, in the current fiscal environment, priority must be given to programs that directly serve low-income Americans who rely on HUD programs. 

Given the budget reductions, the Committee encourages HUD to 

partner with other researchers to pursue valuable housing research 

opportunities. To facilitate these partnerships and leverage other 

Federal and philanthropic funding sources, the Committee includes 

language to enable HUD to pursue cooperative agreements with 

other entities without having to go through a competition in cases 

where there is substantial leveraging. 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $71,856,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 72,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 64,287,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding for 

both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the Fair 

Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP]. 

The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local 

agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as 

amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage services. The 

major objective of the program is to assure prompt and effective 

processing of title VIII complaints with appropriate remedies for 

complaints by State and local fair housing agencies. 

The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by section 

561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, as 

amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair housing opportunities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $64,287,000 for 

the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Of the amounts 

provided, $28,347,000 is for the fair housing assistance program 

[FHAP] and $35,940,000 is for the fair housing initiatives program 

[FHIP]. The total amount is $7,713,000 less than the budget request and $7,569,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

139 

The Committee supports the efforts of HUD and its local partners to prevent and combat housing discrimination. It is clear from 

HUD’s fiscal year 2010 Annual Report on Fair Housing that Americans continue to experience housing discrimination, most often 

based on disability and race. The funding provided through the 

FHAP and FHIP programs helps HUD and local agencies investigate and work to resolve potential fair housing violations. 

While the Committee supports the important work that HUD 

and its local partners do, the current budget environment requires 

the Committee to pare back some of the activities it currently 

funds. After reviewing the budget, the Committee is recommending 

a series of reductions to both the FHAP and FHIP programs. The 

Committee believes the resources provided will still enable HUD 

and its partner agencies to enforce fair housing laws. 

Within the funding provided for FHAP, the Committee rec- ommends an overall reduction of $1,094,000 below the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level. Specifically, the Committee recommends a reduction of $400,000 to the Fair Housing Conference; a reduction of 

$495,000 to administrative costs; and of a reduction of $199,000 for 

the creation and translation of documents for persons with limited 

English proficiency. 

Within the funding provided for FHIP, the Committee rec- ommends a reduction of $6,475,000. The Committee recommends a 

reduction of $2,491,000 to Education and Outreach Initiative [EOI] 

activities and a reduction of $3,984,000 to Fair Housing Organizations Initiative [FHOI]. These reductions are consistent with cuts 

proposed by the Administration in its fiscal year 2012 budget requests. However, the Committee is not supporting increases in 

other activities that were proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget 

such as increased outreach to colleges and universities. 

Section 3.—The Committee notes a statutory requirement included in the United States Housing Act of 1968 that when HUD 

resources are used for certain housing or community development, 

activities, grantees and contractors must try to provide training 

and employment opportunities to low- and very low-income persons 

and businesses located nearby. This preference provides public 

housing residents and other low-income persons with the chance to 

improve their financial circumstances and increase their self-sufficiency. It also supports small businesses in communities where 

HUD funding is being spent. This administration brought renewed 

attention to this requirement by more closely tracking grantees’ 

fulfillment of it. While the Committee is concerned that some 

grantees are still not completing a required report, the Committee 

notes the progress made in increasing participation and will continue to monitor HUD’s ability to ensure this requirement in met. 

HUD should also identify any barriers that limit its application. 

Limited English Proficiency.—The Committee has included 

$300,000 for the creation and promotion of translated materials 

that support the assistance of persons with limited English proficiency. The funding previously provided for this activity supports 

both the translation and dissemination of documents. The Committee urges the Department to move expeditiously to meet the intent of these funds. In addition, HUD is directed to provide information on its work on this program in its 2013 budget justification. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

140 

This should include plans and costs of: translating and updating 

documents, conducting outreach and disseminating vital documents, and operating an interpretation hotline. 

OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $119,760,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 140,000,000 

Committee Recommendation ................................................................ 120,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 

established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction 

Act, under which HUD is authorized to make grants to States, localities, and Native American tribes to conduct lead-based paint 

hazard reduction and abatement activities in private, low-income 

housing. Lead poisoning is a significant environmental health hazard, particularly for young children and pregnant women, and can 

result in neurological damage, learning disabilities, and impaired 

growth. Based on the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], about 250,000 children have 

elevated blood levels, down from 1.7 million in the late 1980s. Despite this improvement, lead poisoning remains a serious childhood 

environmental health condition, with some 1.1 percent of all children aged 1 to 5 years having elevated blood levels. This percentage is much higher for low-income children living in housing constructed prior to 1978. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $120,000,000 for 

lead-based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2012. This amount is $20,000,000 less than the President’s 

budget request and $240,000 more than the amount available in 

fiscal year 2011. Of this amount, the Committee recommends an 

appropriation of $45,000,000 to the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, which was established in fiscal year 2003 to focus on major 

urban areas where children are disproportionately at risk for lead 

poisoning. The Committee encourages HUD to continue to work 

with grantees on lead-based abatement hazards programs so that 

information on lead hazard abatements, risk assessment data, and 

blood levels is readily available to the public through publications 

and Internet sites. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $199,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 243,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 199,035,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Working Capital Fund, authorized by the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, finances information 

technology and office automation initiatives on a centralized basis. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

141 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $199,035,000 for 

the Working Capital Fund [WCF] for fiscal year 2012. This level 

of funding is $565,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level 

and $43,965,000 less than the budget request. The Working Capital 

Fund is also supported with additional funding provided through a 

transfer of $70,652,000 from the FHA’s Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund as proposed by the President. The difference between 

the Committee recommendation and the President’s request is the 

result of a shift of salaries and expenses resources from WCF to an 

account under the ‘‘Administration, Operations and Management’’ 

heading. 

The Committee recommendation includes several changes to 

HUD’s Working Capital Fund to bring greater transparency and 

accountability to information technology [IT] spending at HUD. 

The Committee has moved the salaries and expenses of the Office 

of the Chief Information Officer [OCIO] from the WCF to the ‘‘Administration, Operations and Management’’ heading to bring the 

OCIO under the same structure as other HUD offices, and allow 

Congress and HUD to better monitor the performance of the OCIO. 

The Committee has also recommended moving funding for development, modernization and enhancement [DME] activities from the 

Transformation Initiative [TI] to the WCF, as requested. When the 

administration first proposed this change, the Committee was concerned that the WCF did not have the necessary controls in place 

to ensure adequate oversight of these critical investments. However, HUD’s intention is to bring the same level of oversight to all 

WCF activities as it has to the TI projects. 

In the months since this proposal was made, HUD has made important changes to improve controls of the WCF. This included giving the Chief Information Officer control over WCF funds. In order 

to ensure that HUD continues the oversight of DME activities 

funded through the WCF, the Committee has retained language requiring the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to review 

spend plans for all DME projects funded through the WCF. 

Work of GAO to Monitor HUD IT Investments.—In fiscal years 

2010 and 2011, the Committee required HUD to produce a spend 

plan for its IT investments funded under TI, which GAO was instructed to review. GAO has provided continuous briefings on the 

results of their reviews to the Committee and, based on this work, 

it is clear that GAO’s involvement in the process is helping to ensure that HUD is focused both on completing these projects, as well 

as on identifying and addressing potential risks. The Committee is 

once again requiring HUD to develop a spend plan for its information technology projects. This plan should include the identification 

of projects to be undertaken, project goals, and costs. In addition, 

the Committee directs GAO to evaluate this plan. This plan may 

also include additional IT system investments that will improve the 

efficiency of HUD programs. Separately, in order to monitor 

progress in achieving project goals and costs for these investments, 

the Committee directs GAO to evaluate HUD’s IT program management practices, including contractor oversight and cost estimating, and HUD’s institutionalization of IT governance, including 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

142 

any achieved cost savings or operational efficiencies that have resulted. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $124,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 126,455,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 124,750,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation will finance all salaries and related expenses 

associated with the operation of the Office of the Inspector General 

[OIG]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $124,750,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. The amount of funding is 

equal to the level provided in fiscal year 2011 and $1,705,000 less 

than the President’s request. The Office of Inspector General serves 

a critical role in auditing HUD grantees to uncover waste, fraud 

and abuse. The OIG should also serve as an important resource for 

the Committee to understand and address systemic concerns. For 

example, the OIG’s work on FHA resulted in important recommendations to reduce program risks. These recommendations 

assisted HUD and Congress in developing and implementing critical reforms. 

Regrettably, this type of work has not been as prevalent across 

other HUD programs. While the OIG conducts audits and investigations of HUD grantees, there is little effort to develop the 

grantee-specific recommendations into broader recommendations 

geared at improving the operation and management of HUD’s programs. As a result, the Committee has not been able to rely on the 

OIG to inform its work as much as it would like. The Committee 

believes that the OIG needs to balance individual audits with program evaluations. The Committee expects the OIG’s audit plan for 

fiscal year 2012 to include program evaluations, including identification of management challenges, examples of best practices and 

recommendation for program improvements. The Committee will 

evaluate the OIG’s work in this area and expects its semi-annual 

reports to Congress to include these efforts. 

TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $170,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2 120,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3 51,263,085 

1This amount includes an appropriation of $70,858,000 and $99,142,000 by transfer. 

2This entire amount is by transfer. 

3This amount is by transfer. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Transformation Initiative is the Department’s effort to improve and streamline the systems and operations at HUD. Manrfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

143 

aged by the Office of Strategic Planning and Management, this initiative has three elements: (1) research, evaluation, and program 

metrics; (2) program demonstrations; and (3) technical assistance 

and capacity building. Funding to support these activities is provided by transfer from HUD programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes a recommended level of funding of up to $51,263,085 for the Transformation Initiative. This funding is provided by transfers of up to 0.5 percent from other accounts. This 

amount is $68,736,915 below the President’s request, and 

$118,736,915 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

In fiscal year 2010, the administration launched the Transformation Initiative [TI] to improve the operations and capacity of 

HUD. TI funds research and demonstrations to better equip HUD 

to address the Nation’s housing needs. In addition to improving 

HUD’s own operations, TI also includes funding to improve the capacity and performance of its grantees through technical assistance. 

The Committee has seen improvements resulting from the TI. 

This year, the budget requested the transfer of information technology [IT] investments from TI to the ‘‘Working Capital Fund’’. 

With this change, the focus of the TI account is technical assistance 

and research and demonstrations. Since the TI fund no longer has 

to support the significant investments related to IT, and given the 

significant reduction in program levels, HUD may only transfer up 

to 0.5 percent from select programs to the TI. 

The Committee places the greatest priority for these funds on 

technical assistance [TA]. The Committee supports HUD’s intent to 

refocus its technical assistance on improving outcomes, and not just 

concentrating on timely execution of activities and funding. The 

Committee expects that HUD will spend at least $23,000,000 on 

the OneCPD: Integrated Practitioner Assistance System to deliver 

comprehensive TA to HUD grantees. This assistance should support improving grantees’ ability to achieve results using HUD funding, such as CDBG and HOME. In addition, the Joint Core Skills 

Certification proposal to provide grantees with core skills to administer HUD programs across Public and Indian Housing, Community 

Planning and Development, and Multifamily Housing will also help 

increase the capacity of HUD grantees. The Committee also directs 

HUD to work with the OIG to identify grantees that have capacity 

challenges and provide additional assistance to them to ensure that 

problems are resolved. 

National Resource Bank.—The fiscal year 2012 budget requests $50,000,000 for a National Resource Bank [NRB]. The goal of the 

NRB is to provide place-based technical assistance to communities 

most in need through third party experts. This technical assistance 

would be tailored to the specific needs of each community. In many 

ways, the NRB builds upon the success of HUD’s OneCPD program. However, NRB seeks to address the broader needs of local 

communities and grantees who may also receive funding from other 

Federal agencies. The Committee is providing authority for HUD 

to use up to $10,000,000 from the TI to support this initiative. The 

Committee encourages the Office of Management and Budget to 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

144 

seek resources from other departments whose programs may benefit from the NRB to expand the program. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Committee recommends administrative provisions. A brief 

description follows. 

SEC. 201. This section promotes the refinancing of certain housing bonds. 

SEC. 202. This section clarifies a limitation on use of funds under 

the Fair Housing Act. 

SEC. 203. This section clarifies the allocation of HOPWA funding 

for fiscal year 2006. 

SEC. 204. This section requires HUD to award funds on a competitive basis unless otherwise provided. 

SEC. 205. This section allows funds to be used to reimburse GSEs 

and other Federal entities for various administrative expenses. 

SEC. 206. This section limits HUD spending to amounts set out 

in the budget justification. 

SEC. 207. This section clarifies expenditure authority for entities 

subject to the Government Corporation Control Act. 

SEC. 208. This section requires quarterly reports on all uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD programs. 

SEC. 209. This section makes a number of corrections to the 

award of HOPWA funding. 

SEC. 210. This section requires HUD to submit its fiscal year 

2013 budget justifications according to congressional requirements. 

SEC. 211. This section exempts Los Angeles County, Alaska, 

Iowa, and Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA resident on the board of directors for fiscal year 2006. Instead, the public housing agencies in these States are required to establish advisory boards that include public housing tenants and section 8 recipients. 

SEC. 212. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer of 

existing project-based subsidies and liabilities from obsolete housing to housing that better meets the needs of the assisted tenants. 

SEC. 213. This section provides allocation requirements for Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block 

Grant program. 

SEC. 214. This section exempts GNMA from certain requirements 

of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. 

SEC. 215. This section reforms certain section 8 rent calculations 

as to athletic scholarships. 

SEC. 216. This section eliminates a cap on Home Equity Conversion Mortgages. 

SEC. 217. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8 assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing. 

SEC. 218. This section authorizes the Secretary to waive certain 

requirements on adjusted income for certain assisted living projects 

for counties in Michigan. 

SEC. 219. This section requires HUD to report quarterly to the 

Appropriations Committees on the use of sole-source contracting by 

HUD. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

145 

SEC. 220. This section allows the recipient of a section 202 grant 

to establish a single-asset nonprofit entity to own the project and 

may lend the grant funds to such entity. 

SEC. 221. This section clarifies the use of the 108 loan guaranteed program for nonentitlement communities. 

SEC. 222. This section extends the HOPE VI program until September 30, 2012. 

SEC. 223. This section allows public housing authorities with less 

than 400 units to be exempt from management requirements in the 

operating fund rule. 

SEC. 224. This section restricts the Secretary from imposing any 

requirement or guideline relating to asset management that restricts or limits the use of capital funds for central office costs, up 

to the limit established in QWHRA. 

SEC. 225. This section requires allotment holders to meet certain 

criteria of the CFO. 

SEC. 226. This section requires the Secretary to report quarterly 

on the status of all project-based section 8 housing. 

SEC. 227. This section limits attorney fees. 

SEC. 228. The section modifies the NOFA process to include the 

Internet. 

SEC. 229. The section makes reforms to the Federal Surplus 

Property Program under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 

Act. 

SEC. 230. This section establishes reprogramming and reallocation requirements within HUD’s salaries and expenses accounts. 

SEC. 231. This section allows the Disaster Housing Assistance 

Programs to be considered a program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of income verification 

and matching. 

SEC. 232. This section allows the Secretary to transfer funding 

from salaries and expenses accounts to the ‘‘Working Capital Fund’’ 

to support technology improvements. 

SEC. 233. This section eliminates an unnecessary transfer from 

the Rental Housing Assistance Fund to the Flexible Subsidy Fund. 

SEC. 234. This section provides the Secretary with the authority 

to add up to three additional public housing agencies to the Moving-to-Work demonstration program. 

SEC. 235. This section rescinds $750,000,000 from advanced appropriation included in the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution 

for the tenant-based rental assistance account. To implement this 

rescission, the Secretary is to adjust the 2012 allocations for public 

housing agencies taking into account their net restricted assets. 

SEC. 236. This section makes several revisions to rental assistance programs authorized by the United States Housing Act of 

1937. The provision expands eligibility of working poor in low income areas, increases the standard elderly or disabled allowance, 

increases the medical expense threshold, only requires recertification for families with 90 percent or more fixed income every 3 

years, increases access to housing for persons with disabilities, 

streamlines fair market rent publication, and requires annual publication of income limits. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

146 

SEC. 237. This section extends the Mark-to-Market program authorized by the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act until October 1, 2015. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

(147) 

TITLE III 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

ACCESS BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $7,285,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 7,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,400,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Access Board (formerly known as the Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance Board) was established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board is responsible for developing guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Architectural Barriers Act, and the Telecommunications Act. These guidelines ensure that buildings and facilities, 

transportation vehicles, and telecommunications equipment covered 

by these laws are readily accessible to and usable by people with 

disabilities. The Board is also responsible for developing standards 

under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act for accessible electronic 

and information technology used by Federal agencies, and for medical diagnostic equipment under section 510 of the Rehabilitation 

Act. The Access Board also enforces the Architectural Barriers Act. 

In addition, the Board provides training and technical assistance 

on the guidelines and standards it develops to Government agencies, public and private organizations, individuals and businesses 

on the removal of accessibility barriers. 

In 2002, the Access Board was given additional responsibilities 

under the Help America Vote Act. The Board serves on the Board 

of Advisors and the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, 

which helps Election Assistance Commission develop voluntary 

guidelines and guidance for voting systems, including accessibility 

for people with disabilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,285,000 for the operations of the 

Access Board. This level of funding is $115,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level and equal to the President’s fiscal year 

2012 request. 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $24,087,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 26,265,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 24,100,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

148 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is an independent regulatory agency which administers the Shipping Act of 1984 (Public 

Law 98–237), as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 

1998 (Public Law 105–258); section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 

1920 (41 Stat. 998); the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 

(Public Law 100–418); and Public Law 89–777. 

FMC regulates the international waterborne commerce of the 

United States. In addition, the FMC has responsibility for licensing 

and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and assuring that 

vessel owners or operators establish financial responsibility to pay 

judgments for death or injury to passengers, or nonperformance of 

a cruise, on voyages from U.S. ports. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $24,100,000 for the salaries and expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] for fiscal year 

2012. This amount is $2,165,000 less than the budget request and 

$13,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

The Committee commends the FMC’s efforts to assist American 

exporters to resolve supply chain disruptions due to insufficient domestic container supply. Facilitating the accessibility of U.S. exports to foreign markets is a key factor in the Nation’s economic 

recovery. The Committee also supports the FMC’s efforts to protect 

consumers from potentially unlawful, unfair, or deceptive ocean 

transportation practices related to the movement of household 

goods or personal property in international oceanborne trade. 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $19,311,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 22,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 19,311,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Inspector General [OIG] for Amtrak was created by 

the Inspector General Act Amendment of 1988. The Act recognized 

Amtrak as a ‘‘designated Federal entity’’ and required the railroad 

to establish an independent and objective unit to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of Amtrak; to provide leadership and coordination and recommend policies for activities designed to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of Amtrak, and for 

activities designed to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in Amtrak operations; and to provide a means for keeping the Amtrak 

leadership and the Congress fully and currently informed about 

problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of Amtrak 

and the necessity for and progress of corrective action. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

149 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $19,311,000 for the Amtrak Office of 

Inspector General [OIG]. This funding level is $2,689,000 less than 

the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

The Committee retains language that requires the Amtrak OIG to 

submit a budget request in similar format and substance to those 

submitted by other executive agencies in the Federal Government. 

The Committee commends the progress the OIG has made to institute an appropriate separation of duties, financial systems and 

hiring practices. The Council of Inspectors General on Integrity 

and Efficiency [CIGIE] certified that policies and procedures are 

consistent with the letter and the spirit of the Inspector General 

Act of 1978, as amended. The technological and programmatic 

changes required to achieve this necessary independence are substantial and challenging in a constrained fiscal climate. Many of 

these changes stem from the National Academy of Public Administration’s [NAPA] assessment, which generated 41 recommendations 

to improve management, communications, investigative practices 

and operations. Moving forward, the OIG still needs to implement 

performance and accountability measures, develop human capital 

management policies and practices, and define annual work 

prioritization and planning. The Committee expects the OIG to report on its progress in addressing these issues and the NAPA recommendations in its semi-annual report. 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $97,854,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 102,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 99,275,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Initially established along with the Department of Transportation [DOT], the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] 

commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent Federal 

agency. The board is charged by Congress with investigating every 

civil aviation accident in the United States as well as significant 

accidents in the other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, 

marine, and pipeline—and issuing safety recommendations aimed 

at preventing future accidents. Although it has always operated 

independently, NTSB relied on DOT for funding and administrative support until the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Public 

Law 93–633) severed all ties between the two organizations starting in 1975. 

In addition to its investigatory duties, NTSB is responsible for 

maintaining the Government’s database of civil aviation accidents 

and also conducts special studies of transportation safety issues of 

national significance. Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international treaties, NTSB supplies investigators to serve 

as U.S. accredited representatives for aviation accidents overseas 

involving U.S-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or major 

components of U.S. manufacture. NTSB also serves as the ‘‘court 

of appeals’’ for any airman, mechanic, or mariner whenever certifirfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

150 

cate action is taken by the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] 

or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are 

assessed by FAA. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $99,275,000 for the National Transportation Safety Board, which is $3,125,000 less than the budget 

request and $1,421,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level. The Committee has also continued to include language that 

allows NTSB to make payments on its lease for the NTSB training 

facility with funding provided in the bill. 

Protecting the Current Workforce.—Managing its workforce is 

crucial to the NTSB. The agency must maintain a highly skilled 

workforce with the expertise necessary to investigate accidents, determine their probable causes, and extract important lessons so 

that future accidents may be prevented. No other agency or firm 

in the United States does the work of the NTSB, acting as an honest broker and offering unbiased analysis and safety recommendations. 

Unfortunately, between fiscal years 2003 and 2007, low funding 

levels forced the NTSB to cut its staff by a total of 50 FTE. The 

Committee recognized the damage caused by these low funding levels, and for the following 3 years, it placed a clear priority on rebuilding the NTSB workforce. 

For fiscal year 2012, the Committee provides a modest increase 

of $1,421,000 to cover the cost of inflation and accommodate the 

NTSB’s rent increase. The Committee’s goal in providing this increase is to prevent these costs from eroding the workforce of the 

NTSB. The NTSB requested another $2,929,000 to pay for an additional 16 FTE across the agency. The Committee understands the 

value of further investments in NTSB staff; however, the Committee recommendation does not provide this increase because such 

a large addition to the staff may be impossible to sustain as fiscal 

constraints grow even tighter beyond the budget year. 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $232,534,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 215,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 200,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by the 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public Law 

95–557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation now operates under the trade name, ‘‘NeighborWorks America.’’ NeighborWorks America helps local communities establish efficient and effective partnerships between residents and representatives of the public and private sectors. These partnership-based 

organizations are independent, tax-exempt, nonprofit entities and 

are frequently known as Neighborhood Housing Services [NHS] or 

mutual housing associations. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

151 

Collectively, these organizations are known as the 

NeighborWorks network. Nationally, 235 NeighborWorks organizations serve nearly 3,000 urban, suburban, and rural communities 

in 49 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $200,000,000 for 

the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation [NRC] for fiscal year 

2012. This amount is $15,300,000 less than the budget request and 

$32,534,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The Committee has included $135,000,000 to support NeighborWorks core 

programs, and continues to support the set-aside of $5,000,000 for 

the multifamily rental housing initiative, which has been successful 

in developing innovative approaches to producing mixed-income affordable housing throughout the Nation. The Committee directs 

NRC to provide a status report on this initiative in its fiscal year 

2013 budget justification. 

Housing Counseling Assistance.—The Committee has included 

$65,000,000 to continue the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program [NFMC] initiated by Congress in fiscal year 2008. 

According to the most recent data from Lender Processing Services, more than 12 percent of U.S. mortgages are in default or foreclosure, with many more struggling to stay current on their payments. This figure underscores the need for foreclosure counseling. 

NeighborWorks reported more than 3 times as much funding being 

requested by counseling agencies than was available in the last 

round of NFMC funding. The NFMC funding is being put to use 

across the country and is successfully helping troubled homeowners 

modify mortgages, reduce their monthly payments, and avoid foreclosure. According to a report by the Urban Institute that analyzed 

the impact of the program, NFMC counseled homeowners had a 70 

percent greater chance of avoiding foreclosure than those who 

didn’t receive counseling. In addition, homeowners who obtained 

loan modifications after receiving NFMC counseling saved an average of $3,200 per year on loan payments. 

The Committee supports NeighborWorks’s effort to target funds 

not only to areas of greatest need, as required, but also to low-income and minority communities, since minorities have been affected disproportionately by the foreclosure crisis. The Committee 

will continue to track the use of these funds through the required 

regular reporting by NeighborWorks, and looks forward to the complete study by the Urban Institute. 

Mortgage Rescue Scams.—Since 2009, NeighborWorks American 

has been working to raise awareness of mortgage rescue scams and 

help vulnerable homeowners access legitimate forms of assistance. 

This campaign targets at-risk communities and populations 

through public service announcements, public media and the Internet. It has reached homeowners in over 40 States, the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico. NeighborWorks also used funds provided by Congress to launch a Web site, Loanscamalert.org, where 

people can report loan scams. As of April 2011, over 150,000 people 

had accessed this site. Within the funds provided, the Committee 

expects NeighborWorks to continue its efforts address mortgage 

rescue scams, which remain prevalent. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

152 

NeighborWorks is also part of a national coalition called the 

Anti-Fraud Campaign Coordination Committee, which includes 

partners such as HUD, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, and State Attorneys General. Since outreach and 

education will be strengthened by strong enforcement action, it is 

important that the coalition includes partners that can use their 

authority to catch and punish those perpetrating loan scams. The 

Committee expects NeighborWorks to continue its work with these 

groups. 

Rural Areas.—The Committee also continues to support Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation’s efforts in building capacity in 

rural areas. The Committee urges the Corporation to continue its 

efforts in addressing the needs of rural communities. 

UNITED STATES INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $2,675,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 3,880,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,640,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is an 

independent agency created by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 to coordinate and direct the multiple efforts of 

Federal agencies and other designated groups. The Council was authorized to review Federal programs that assist homeless persons 

and to take necessary actions to reduce duplication. The Council 

can recommend improvements in programs and activities conducted by Federal, State, and local government as well as local volunteer organizations. The Council consists of the heads of 19 Federal agencies, such as the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Labor, and Transportation; 

and other entities as deemed appropriate. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,640,000 for 

the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH]. 

This amount is $965,200 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $239,800 below the budget request. The increase in this 

account is attributable to a transfer of 10 FTE from HUD to ICH, 

to provide regional support to ICH. By having staff at ICH instead 

detailed from HUD, ICH will be better able to monitor and oversee 

employee performance. 

In June 2010, the Interagency Council on Homelessness released 

Opening Doors: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End 

Homelessness. This plan includes goals for ending homelessness in 

America, including: finishing the job of ending chronic homelessness in 5 years; preventing and ending homelessness among Veterans in 5 years; preventing and ending homelessness for families, 

youth and children in 10 years; and setting a path to ending all 

types of homelessness. Producing the Federal strategic plan was an 

impressive undertaking, but the more challenging task is implerfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

153 

menting the strategies necessary to achieve the plan’s goals. The 

Committee applauds ICH’s continued work to ensure that the Federal strategic plan acts as a guide for Federal and local decision 

makers serving the Nation’s homeless. 

The Committee notes the various activities proposed in ICH’s 

budget for fiscal year 2012 that are designed to improve Federal coordination. These include working with agencies to identify barriers facing homeless children trying to access mainstream services, and improving access to housing and services in rural areas. 

The Committee is pleased that ICH is not only following the strategic plan, but is also using the work and recommendations of the 

Government Accountability Office [GAO] to guide its efforts to improve coordination and reduce fragmentation in the Federal service 

system. For example, ICH convened a group of stakeholders to address the GAO recommendation to develop a common vocabulary 

and common data standards on housing stability. The Committee 

agrees with GAO’s observation that the lack of common vocabulary 

limits the ability to track and share data on the homeless across 

agencies, and creates challenges for homeless clients seeking services, as well as providers trying to serve them. The Committee expects ICH take the lead in working to address GAO’s recommendation to develop and implement a common vocabulary. 

Homeless Veterans.—The Committee applauds the inclusion of 

the goal to prevent and end homelessness among veterans by 2015 

in the Federal strategic plan to end homelessness. Importantly, the 

administration has worked to develop and implement strategies 

and tools necessary to achieving this goal. A critical piece of addressing veteran homelessness, especially chronic homelessness, is 

the HUD-VASH program. The Committee has seen progress in the 

implementation of HUD-VASH, yet there are still communities 

that struggle to target vouchers to those most in need and get veterans into housing quickly. 

The Committee notes the work that ICH has done in bringing 

PHA and VA Medical Center staff together with Federal and local 

partners to find more efficient ways to manage HUD-VASH programs and serve homeless veterans. The Committee believes that 

this is a pivotal role for ICH. The Committee directs ICH to continue to work with HUD and the VA and other Federal and local 

partners to improve HUD-VASH and address veteran homelessness. In particularly, the Committee would like ICH to focus on 

how to leverage the skills of existing homeless providers to improve 

the HUD-VASH program; how to improve targeting of HUD-VASH 

vouchers to those most in need; and how to address the needs of 

homeless veterans in rural areas and on Native American reservations. ICH is further directed to submit a report to the Committees 

on Appropriations and relevant authorizing Committees on 

progress being made and opportunities for improvement in each 

these areas. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

(154) 

TITLE IV 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS ACT 

Section 401 requires pay raises to be absorbed within appropriated levels in this act or previous appropriations acts. 

Section 402 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-Federal 

parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this act. 

Section 403 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal year 

and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so provided herein. 

Section 404 limits expenditures for consulting service through 

procurement contracts where such expenditures are a matter of 

public record and available for public inspection. 

Section 405 authorizes the reprogramming of funds and specifies 

the reprogramming procedures for agencies funded by this act. 

Section 406 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances may 

remain available for certain purposes. 

Section 407 requires departments and agencies under this act to 

report information regarding all sole-source contracts. 

Section 408 prohibits the use of funds for employee training unless such training bears directly upon the performance of official 

duties. 

Section 409 prohibits the use of funds for eminent domain unless 

such taking is employed for public use. 

Section 410 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred without 

express authority. 

Section 411 protects employment rights of Federal employees 

who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the Armed 

Forces. 

Section 412 prohibits the use of funds for activities not in compliance with the Buy American Act. 

Section 413 prohibits funding for any person or entity convicted 

of violating the Buy American Act. 

Section 414 prohibits funds for first-class airline accommodation 

in contravention of section 301–10.122 and 301–10.123 of title 41 

CFR. 

Section 415 prohibits funds from being used to purchase light 

bulbs for an office building unless, to the extent practicable, the 

light bulb has an Energy Star or Federal Energy Management Program designation. 

Section 416 prohibits funds from being used to establish, issue, 

implement, administer, or enforce any prohibition or restriction on 

occupancy preference for veterans in HUD facilities located/leased 

on VA property. 

Section 417 prohibits funds in this act or any prior act for going 

to the group ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied 

organizations. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

155 

Section 418 requires the Department of Transportation and the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development to post on their 

web sites basic information about each of their programs that provides grants or credit assistance through a competitive process. 

When either department first announces the availability of funding 

for a particular program, the appropriate Secretary must post a description of the program’s goals, the criteria that will be used to 

evaluate applications, and an explanation of how applications will 

be selected. When either department announces the results of its 

competition, the appropriate Secretary must post the name and address of each successful applicant, the amount of the award, the 

amount of local match expected, and an explanation of how the 

award meets the program’s goals. Making this information readily 

available on Government Web sites will improve transparency and 

bolster the public’s confidence in these competitive programs. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

(156) 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to 

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is 

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty 

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate 

during that session.’’ 

The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not covered 

under this rule, but reports this information in the spirit of full disclosure. 

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2012: 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration: 

Operations 

Facilities and Equipment 

Research, Engineering, and Development 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports 

Federal Highway Administration: 

Federal-aid Highways 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: 

Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs 

Motor Carrier Safety Grants 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

Operations and Research 

National Driver Register 

National Driver Register Modernization 

Highway Traffic Safety Grants 

Federal Transit Administration: 

Administrative Expenses 

Formula and Bus Grants 

Research and University Research Centers 

Capital Investment Grants 

Grants for Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Reduction 

Maritime Administration: 

Operations and Training 

Ship Disposal 

Maritime Security 

Title XI 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: 

Administration Expenses 

Pipeline Safety 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration: 

Research and Development 

Surface Transportation Board 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

157 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Rental Assistance: 

Section 8 Contract Renewals and Administrative Expenses 

Section 441 Contracts 

Section 8 Preservation, Protection, and Family Unification 

Contract Administrators 

Public Housing Capital Fund 

Public Housing Operating Fund 

Choice Neighborhoods 

Native American Housing Block Grants: 

Native American Housing Block Grants 

Federal Guarantees 

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund 

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant 

Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund 

Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids 

Rural Housing and Economics Development 

Community Development Fund: 

Community Development Block Grants 

Economic Development Initiatives 

Neighborhood Initiatives 

HOME Program: 

HOME Investment Partnership 

Self Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity: 

Capacity Building 

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program 

National Housing Development Corporation 

Housing for the Elderly 

Housing for Persons with Disabilities 

Energy Innovation Fund 

FHA General and Special Risk Program Account: 

Limitation on Guaranteed Loans 

Limitation on Direct Loans 

Credit Subsidy 

Administrative Expenses 

GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program Account: 

Limitation on Guaranteed Loans 

Administrative Expenses 

Policy Development and Research 

Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Program 

Lead Hazards Reduction Program 

Salaries and Expenses 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES

National Transportation Safety Board 

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

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on September 21, 2011, 

the Committee ordered favorably reported an original bill (S. 1596) 

making appropriations the Departments of Transportation, and 

Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fisrfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

158 

cal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, provided that the bill be subject to amendment and that the bill be 

consistent with its spending allocations, by a recorded vote of 28– 

2, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Inouye Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Leahy Mr. Johnson (WI) 

Mr. Harkin 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Kohl 

Mrs. Murray 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Johnson (SD) 

Ms. Landrieu 

Mr. Reed 

Mr. Lautenberg 

Mr. Nelson 

Mr. Pryor 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Brown 

Mr. Cochran 

Mr. Shelby 

Mrs. Hutchison 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Collins 

Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Graham 

Mr. Kirk 

Mr. Coats 

Mr. Blunt 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Hoeven 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the committee.’’ 

In compliance with this rule, the following changes in existing 

law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing 

law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is 

printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is proposed 

is shown in roman. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

159 

TITLE 23—HIGHWAYS 

CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

§ 109. Standards 

(a) IN GENERAL.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(q) PHASE CONSTRUCTION.—Safety considerations for a project 

under this title may be met by phase construction consistent with 

the operative safety management system established in accordance 

with section 303 or in accordance with a statewide transportation 

improvement program approved by the Secretary. 

(r) GUARDRAILS.—The Secretary shall not approve any project 

that includes beam rail elements and terminal sections that are not 

galvanized in accordance with AASHTO M–180, Class A, Type II, 

except that the rail shall be galvanized after fabrication to include 

forming, cutting, shearing, punching, drilling, bending, welding, 

and riveting. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 127. Vehicle weight limitations—Interstate System 

(a) IN GENERAL.— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(11) With respect to all portions of the Interstate Highway System in the State, laws (including regulations) of the 

State of Maine concerning vehicle weight limitations that were 

in effect on October 1, 1995, and are applicable to State highways other than the Interstate System, shall be applicable in 

lieu of the requirements of this subsection.¿ 

(11) (A) With respect to all portions of the Interstate Highway System in the State of Maine, laws (including regulations) 

of that State concerning vehicle weight limitations applicable to 

other State highways shall be applicable in lieu of the requirements under this subsection. 

(B) With respect to all portions of the Interstate Highway 

System in the State of Vermont, laws (including regulations) of 

that State concerning vehicle weight limitations applicable to 

other State highways shall be applicable in lieu of the requirements under this subsection. 

TITLE 26—INTERNAL REVENUE CODE 

CHAPTER 98—TRUST FUND CODE

SUBCHAPTER A—ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUST FUNDS

§ 9502. Airport and Airway Trust Fund 

(a) Creation of Trust Fund 

* * * * * * * 

(d) Expenditures from Airport and Airway Trust Fund 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

160 

(1) Airport and airway program 

Amounts in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund shall be 

available, as provided by appropriation Acts, for making expenditures before April 1, 2010, to meet those obligations of 

the United States— 

(A) incurred under title I of the Airport and Airway 

Development Act of 1970 or of the Airport and Airway Development Act Amendments of 1976 or of the Aviation 

Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 or under the Fiscal Year 1981 Airport Development Authorization Act or 

the provisions of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act 

of 1982 or the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987 or the Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering, and Development Authorization Act of 1990 or the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 or the Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation 

Act of 1992 or the Airport Improvement Program Temporary Extension Act of 1994 or the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 or the Federal 

Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 or the provisions of 

the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations Act, 1999 providing for payments from the 

Airport and Airway Trust Fund or the Interim Federal 

Aviation Administration Authorization Act or section 6002 

of the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 

Public Law 106-59, or the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century or the Aviation and Transportation Security Act or the Vision 100- 

Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act or any joint resolution making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 

2008 or the Department of Transportation Appropriations 

Act, 2008 or the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2008 

or the Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 

2008 or the Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act 

of 2008, Part II or the Federal Aviation Administration 

Extension Act of 2009 or any joint resolution making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2010 or the Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Aviation Administration Extension 

Act or the Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act, Part II or the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 2012; 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 8—LOW-INCOME HOUSING

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING

§ 1437a. Rental payments 

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

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

161 

(1) Dwelling units assisted under this chapter shall be rented 

only to families who are low-income families at the time of their 

initial occupancy of such units. Reviews of family income shall be 

made at least annually. Except as provided in paragraph (2) and 

subject to the requirement under paragraph (3), a family shall pay 

as rent for a dwelling unit assisted under this chapter (other than 

a family assisted under section 1437f(o) or (y) of this title or paying 

rent under section 1437f(c)(3)(B) 1 of this title) the highest of the 

following amounts, rounded to the nearest dollar, except in the case 

of any family with a fixed income, as defined by the Secretary, after 

the initial review of the family’s income, the public housing agency 

or owner shall not be required to conduct a review of the family’s 

income for any year for which such family certifies, in accordance 

with such requirements as the Secretary shall establish, that 90 percent or more of the income of the family consists of fixed income, 

and that the sources of such income have not changed since the previous year, except that the public housing agency or owner shall 

conduct a review of each such family’s income not less than once 

every 3 years. 

* * * * * * * 

(b) Definition of terms under this chapter 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(2) The term ‘‘low-income families’’ means those families whose 

incomes do not exceed 80 per centum of the median income for the 

area, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for smaller 

and larger families, except that the Secretary may establish income 

ceilings higher or lower than 80 per centum of the median for the 

area on the basis of the Secretary’s findings that such variations 

are necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs or 

unusually high or low family incomes. The term ‘‘very low-income 

families’’ means low-income families whose incomes do not exceed 

50 per centum of the median family income for the area, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger 

families, except that the Secretary may establish income ceilings 

higher or lower than 50 per centum of the median for the area on 

the basis of the Secretary’s findings that such variations are necessary because of unusually high or low family incomes. The term 

‘‘extremely low-income families’’ means very low-income families 

whose incomes do not exceed the higher of (A) the poverty guidelines 

updated periodically by the Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of section 673(2) of the Community Services 

Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), applicable to a family of the 

size involved; or (B) 30 percent of the median family income for the 

area, as determined by the Secretary, with adjustments for smaller 

and larger families, except that the Secretary may establish income 

ceilings higher or lower than 30 percent of the median for the area 

on the basis of the Secretary’s findings that such variations are necessary because of unusually high or low family incomes, and except 

that clause (A) of this sentence shall not apply in the case of public 

housing agencies located in Puerto Rico or any other territory or 

possession of the United States. Such ceilings shall be established 

in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture for any rural 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

162 

area, as defined in section 1490 of this title, taking into account the 

subsidy characteristics and types of programs to which such ceilings apply. In determining median incomes (of persons, families, or 

households) for an area or establishing any ceilings or limits based 

on income under this chapter, the Secretary shall determine or establish area median incomes and income ceilings and limits for 

Westchester and Rockland Counties, in the State of New York, as 

if each such county were an area not contained within the metropolitan statistical area in which it is located. In determining such 

area median incomes or establishing such income ceilings or limits 

for the portion of such metropolitan statistical area that does not 

include Westchester or Rockland Counties, the Secretary shall determine or establish area median incomes and income ceilings and 

limits as if such portion included Westchester and Rockland Counties. In determining areas that are designated as difficult development areas for purposes of the low-income housing tax credit, the 

Secretary shall include Westchester and Rockland Counties, New 

York, in the New York City metropolitan area. The Secretary shall 

periodically, but not less than annually, determine or establish area 

median incomes and income ceilings and limits in accordance with 

this paragraph. 

* * * * * * * 

(5) ADJUSTED INCOME.— (A) MANDATORY EXCLUSIONS.— (i) ELDERLY AND DISABLED FAMILIES.—ø$400¿ 

$675 for any elderly or disabled family. 

(ii) MEDICAL EXPENSES.—The amount by which ø3 

percent¿ 10 percent of the annual family income is exceeded by the sum of— 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1437f. Low-income housing assistance 

(a) Authorization for assistance payments 

* * * * * * * 

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

(1) (A) An assistance contract entered into pursuant to this section shall establish the maximum monthly rent (including utilities 

and all maintenance and management charges) which the owner is 

entitled to receive for each dwelling unit with respect to which such 

assistance payments are to be made. The maximum monthly rent 

shall not exceed by more than 10 per centum the fair market rental 

established by the Secretary periodically but not less than annually 

for existing or newly constructed rental dwelling units of various 

sizes and types in the market area suitable for occupancy by persons assisted under this section, except that the maximum monthly 

rent may exceed the fair market rental (A) by more than 10 but 

not more than 20 per centum where the Secretary determines that 

special circumstances warrant such higher maximum rent or that 

such higher rent is necessary to the implementation of a housing 

strategy as defined in section 12705 of this title, or (B) by such 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

163 

higher amount as may be requested by a tenant and approved by 

the public housing agency in accordance with paragraph (3)(B). In 

the case of newly constructed and substantially rehabilitated units, 

the exception in the preceding sentence shall not apply to more 

than 20 per centum of the total amount of authority to enter into 

annual contributions contracts for such units which is allocated to 

an area and obligated with respect to any fiscal year beginning on 

or after October 1, 1980. øProposed fair market rentals for an area 

shall be published in the Federal Register with reasonable time for 

public comment, and shall become effective upon the date of publication in final form in the Federal Register. Each fair market rental in effect under this subsection shall be adjusted to be effective 

on October 1 of each year to reflect changes, based on the most recent available data trended so the rentals will be current for the 

year to which they apply, of rents for existing or newly constructed 

rental dwelling units, as the case may be, of various sizes and 

types in the market area suitable for occupancy by persons assisted 

under this section.¿ Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

section, after October 12, 1977, the Secretary shall prohibit highrise elevator projects for families with children unless there is no 

practical alternative. øThe Secretary shall establish separate fair 

market rentals under this paragraph for Westchester County in the 

State of New York. The Secretary shall also establish separate fair 

market rentals under this paragraph for Monroe County in the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In establishing fair market rentals for the remaining portion of the market area in which Monroe 

County is located, the Secretary shall establish the fair market 

rentals as if such portion included Monroe County. If units assisted 

under this section are exempt from local rent control while they are 

so assisted or otherwise, the maximum monthly rent for such units 

shall be reasonable in comparison with other units in the market 

area that are exempt from local rent control¿. (B) Fair market rentals for an area shall be published not less 

than annually by the Secretary on the Department’s Internet Web 

site and in any other manner specified by the Secretary. The Secretary shall publish notice of the publication of such fair market 

rentals in the Federal Register, and such fair market rentals shall 

become effective no earlier than 30 days after the date of such publication. The Secretary shall establish a procedure for public housing 

agencies and other interested parties to comment on such fair market rentals and to request, within a time specified by the Secretary, 

reevaluation of the fair market rental in a jurisdiction. The Secretary shall publish for comment in the Federal Register notices of 

proposed material changes in the methodology for estimating fair 

market rentals and notices specifying the final decisions regarding 

such proposed substantial methodological changes and responses to 

public comments. 

* * * * * * * 

(o) Voucher program 

(1) Authority 

(A) In general 

* * * * * * * 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

164 

1So in original. No subpar. (B) has been enacted. 

(B) Establishment of payment standard 

Except as provided under subparagraph (D), the payment standard for each size of dwelling unit in a market 

area shall not exceed 110 percent of the fair market rental 

established under subsection (c) of this section for the 

same size of dwelling unit in the same market area and 

shall be not less than 90 percent of that fair market rental, except that no public housing agency shall be required 

as a result of a reduction in the fair market rental to reduce the payment standard applied to a family continuing 

to reside in a unit for which the family was receiving assistance under this section at the time the fair market rental was reduced. The Secretary shall allow public housing 

agencies to request exception payment standards within fair 

market rental areas subject to criteria and procedures established by the Secretary. 

* * * * * * * 

(D) Approval 

The Secretary may require a public housing agency to 

submit the payment standard of the public housing agency 

to the Secretary for approval, if the payment standard is 

less than 90 percent of the fair market rental or exceeds 

110 percent of the fair market rental except that a public 

housing agency may establish a payment standard of not 

more than 120 percent of the fair market rent, where necessary, as a reasonable accommodation for a person with a 

disability, without approval of the Secretary. A public housing agency may seek approval of the Secretary to use a payment standard greater than 120 percent of the fair market 

rent as a reasonable accommodation for a disabled family 

or other family with a person with a disability. In connection with the use of any increased payment standard established or approved pursuant to either of the preceding two 

sentences as a reasonable accommodation for a person with 

a disability, the Secretary may not establish additional requirements regarding the amount of adjusted income paid 

by such person for rent. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1437n. Eligibility for assisted housing 

(a) Income eligibility for public housing 

(1) Income mix within projects 

* * * * * * * 

(2) PHA income mix 

(A) 1TARGETING.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), of 

the public housing dwelling units of a public housing agency 

made available for occupancy in any fiscal year by eligible families, not less than 40 percent shall be occupied by øfamilies 

whose incomes at the time of commencement of occupancy do 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

165 

not exceed 30 percent of the area median income, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger families; except that the Secretary may establish income 

ceilings higher or lower than 30 percent of the area median income on the basis of the Secretary’s findings that such variations are necessary because of unusually high or low family 

incomes¿ extremely low-income families. 

* * * * * * * 

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

(1) In general 

Of the families initially provided tenant based assistance 

under section 1437f of this title by a public housing agency in 

any fiscal year, not less than 75 percent shall be øfamilies 

whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the area median income, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for 

smaller and larger families; except that the Secretary may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 30 percent of the 

area median income on the basis of the Secretary’s findings 

that such variations are necessary because of unusually high 

or low family incomes¿ extremely low-income families. 

* * * * * * * 

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

(1) Pre-1981 act projects 

* * * * * * * 

(3) Targeting 

For each project assisted under a contract for project-based 

assistance, of the dwelling units that become available for occupancy in any fiscal year that are assisted under the contract, 

not less than 40 percent shall be available for leasing only by 

øfamilies whose incomes at the time of commencement of occupancy do not exceed 30 percent of the area median income, as 

determined by the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and 

larger families; except that the Secretary may establish income 

ceilings higher or lower than 30 percent of the area median income on the basis of the Secretary’s findings that such variations are necessary because of unusually high or low family 

incomes¿ extremely low-income families. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1437v. Demolition, site revitalization, replacement housing, 

and tenant-based assistance grants for projects 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(m) Funding 

(1) Authorization of appropriations 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

166 

There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under this section $574,000,000 for øfiscal year 2010.¿ fiscal year 

2012. 

* * * * * * * 

(o) Sunset 

No assistance may be provided under this section after øSeptember 30, 2010.¿ September 30, 2012. 

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION 

PART B—AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE

CHAPTER 471—AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

SUBCHAPTER I—AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT

§ 47124. Agreements for State and local operation of airport 

facilities 

(a) GOVERNMENT RELIEF FROM LIABILITY.— * * * 

(b) AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL CONTRACT PROGRAM.—(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) CONTRACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER PROGRAM.—(A) IN

GENERAL.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) COSTS EXCEEDING BENEFITS.—If the costs of operating an 

air traffic tower under the program exceed the benefits, the airport 

sponsor or State or local government having jurisdiction over the 

airport shall pay the portion of the costs that exceed such øbenefit.¿ benefit, with the maximum allowable local cost share capped 

at 20 percent. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE VIII—PIPELINES 

CHAPTER 601—SAFETY

§ 60117. Administrative 

(a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(n) COST RECOVERY FOR DESIGN REVIEWS.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary conducts facility design 

safety reviews in connection with a proposal to construct, expand, or operate a liquefied natural gas pipeline facility, the 

Secretary may require the person requesting such reviews to 

pay the associated staff costs relating to such reviews incurred 

by the Secretary in section 60301(d). The Secretary may assess 

such costs in any reasonable manner. 

ø(2) DEPOSIT.—The Secretary shall deposit all funds paid 

to the Secretary under this subsection into the Department of 

Treasury account 69–5172–0–2–407 or its successor account. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

167 

ø(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Funds deposited 

pursuant to this subsection are authorized to be appropriated 

for the purposes set forth in section 60301(d). 

(n) COST RECOVERY FOR DESIGN REVIEWS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary conducts facility design 

safety reviews in connection with a proposal to construct, expand, or operate a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline or liquefied 

natural gas pipeline facility, including construction inspections 

and oversight, the Secretary may require the person or entity 

proposing the project to pay the costs incurred by the Secretary 

relating to such reviews. If the Secretary exercises the cost recovery authority described in this section, the Secretary shall prescribe a fee structure and assessment methodology that is based 

on the costs of providing these reviews and shall prescribe procedures to collect fees under this section. This authority is in 

addition to the authority provided in section 60301 of this title. 

(2) NOTIFICATION.—For any new pipeline construction 

project in which the Secretary will conduct design reviews, the 

person or entity proposing the project shall notify the Secretary 

and provide design specifications, construction plans and procedures, and related materials at least 120 days prior to the commencement of construction. 

(3) DEPOSIT AND USE.—The Secretary shall deposit funds 

paid under this subsection into the Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund. Funds deposited under this section are authorized 

to be appropriated for the purposes set forth in this chapter. 

Fees authorized under this section shall be collected and available for obligation only to the extent and in the amount provided in advance in appropriations acts. 

* * * * * * * 

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005, PUBLIC 

LAW 108–447 

DIVISION I—DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

øFLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND¿ 

ø(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)¿ 

øFrom the Rental Housing Assistance Fund, all uncommitted 

balances of excess rental charges as of September 30, 2004, and 

any collections made during fiscal year 2005 and all subsequent fiscal years, shall be transferred to the Flexible Subsidy Fund, as authorized by section 236(g) of the National Housing Act, as amended.¿ 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

168 

TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006, PUBLIC LAW 109–115 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

øFLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

ø(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

øFrom the Rental Housing Assistance Fund, all uncommitted 

balances of excess rental charges as of September 30, 2005, and 

any collections made during fiscal year 2006 and all subsequent fiscal years, shall be transferred to the Flexible Subsidy Fund, as authorized by section 236(g) of the National Housing Act, as amended.¿ 

H.R. 2887 

TITLE I—EXTENSION OF SURFACE 

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS 

Subtitle A—Federal-Aid Highways 

SEC. 112. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or any other law, there 

is authorized to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund 

(other than the Mass Transit Account), from amounts provided 

under section 111, for administrative expenses of the Federal-aid 

highway program ø$196,427,625¿ an amount equal to one-half the 

sum authorized for such purpose for fiscal year 2011 by section 

412(a)(2) of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2010 for 

the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 

2012. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

169 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution 

for 2012: Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and 

Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

Mandatory ............................................................................ .................... .................... .................... ( 1 ) 

Discretionary ........................................................................ 55,250 57,550 125,717 1 122,721 

Security ....................................................................... .................... .................... NA NA 

Nonsecurity ................................................................. 55,250 57,550 NA NA 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2012 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 42,661 

2013 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 34,250 

2014 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 14,370 

2015 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 6,262 

2016 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 7,541 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2012 ......................................................................................... NA 32,092 NA 30,254 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 

Consistent with the funding recommended in the bill for disaster funding and in accordance with section 251(b)(2)(D) of the BBEDCA and 

section 106 of the Deficit Control Act of 2011, the Committee anticipates that the Budget Committee will file a revised section 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations reflecting an upward adjustment of $2,300,000,000 in budget authority plus associated outlays. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

170 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2011 appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 102,481 118,842 102,202 ¥279 ¥16,640 

Immediate Office of the Secretary .................................................................................................................... (2,626 ) (2,623 ) (2,618 ) (¥8 ) (¥5 ) Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary ........................................................................................................ (984 ) (988 ) (981 ) (¥3 ) (¥7 ) Office of the General Counsel ........................................................................................................................... (20,318 ) (19,615 ) (19,515 ) (¥803 ) (¥100 ) Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy .............................................................................. (11,078 ) (12,831 ) (11,004 ) (¥74 ) (¥1,827 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs ........................................................................... (10,538 ) (10,949 ) (10,538 ) ............................ (¥411 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs ............................................................................. (2,499 ) (2,630 ) (2,544 ) (∂45 ) (¥86 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ....................................................................................... (25,469 ) (27,697 ) (25,469 ) ............................ (¥2,228 ) Office of Public Affairs ..................................................................................................................................... (2,051 ) (2,137 ) (2,046 ) (¥5 ) (¥91 ) Office of the Executive Secretariat ................................................................................................................... (1,655 ) (1,682 ) (1,649 ) (¥6 ) (¥33 ) Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ................................................................................ (1,496 ) (1,520 ) (1,492 ) (¥4 ) (¥28 ) Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response .............................................................................. (10,579 ) (10,797 ) (10,578 ) (¥1 ) (¥219 ) Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................................................................................. (13,189 ) (17,750 ) (13,768 ) (∂579 ) (¥3,982 ) 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 102,481 118,842 102,202 ¥279 ¥16,640 

National infrastructure investments .......................................................................................................................... 526,944 ............................ 550,000 ∂23,056 ∂550,000 

National infrastructure investments ................................................................................................................. ............................ 2,000,000 ............................ ............................ ¥2,000,000 

Livable communities initiative ................................................................................................................................... ............................ 10,000 ............................ ............................ ¥10,000 Financial management capital .................................................................................................................................. 4,990 17,000 4,990 ............................ ¥12,010 Cyber-security initiatives ............................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ 10,000 ∂10,000 ∂10,000 Office of Civil Rights ................................................................................................................................................. 9,648 9,661 9,648 ............................ ¥13 Rescission of excess compensation for general aviation operations (rescission) .................................................... ............................ ¥3,254 ¥3,254 ¥3,254 ............................Transportation planning, research, and development ............................................................................................... 9,799 9,824 9,000 ¥799 ¥824 Working capital fund .................................................................................................................................................. (147,301 ) ............................ (147,596 ) (∂295 ) (∂147,596 ) Minority business resource center program ............................................................................................................... 921 922 921 ............................ ¥1 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (18,330 ) (18,367 ) (18,367 ) (∂37 ) ............................

Minority business outreach ........................................................................................................................................ 3,068 3,100 3,068 ............................ ¥32 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

171 

Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) ........................................................................................... 149,700 123,254 143,000 ¥6,700 ∂19,746 

Total, Office of the Secretary ....................................................................................................................... 807,551 2,289,349 829,575 ∂22,024 ¥1,459,774 

National infrastructure bank ...................................................................................................................................... ............................ 5,000,000 ............................ ............................ ¥5,000,000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Operations .................................................................................................................................................................. 9,513,962 9,823,000 9,635,710 ∂121,748 ¥187,290 

Air traffic organization ...................................................................................................................................... (7,473,299 ) (7,646,145 ) (7,560,815 ) (∂87,516 ) (¥85,330 ) Aviation safety ................................................................................................................................................... (1,253,020 ) (1,283,568 ) (1,253,381 ) (∂361 ) (¥30,187 ) Commercial space transportation ..................................................................................................................... ............................ (26,625 ) (15,005 ) (∂15,005 ) (¥11,620 ) Financial services .............................................................................................................................................. ............................ (112,369 ) (112,459 ) (∂112,459 ) (∂90 ) Human resource management .......................................................................................................................... ............................ (102,125 ) (98,858 ) (∂98,858 ) (¥3,267 ) Region and center operations ........................................................................................................................... ............................ (374,955 ) (337,944 ) (∂337,944 ) (¥37,011 ) Staff offices ....................................................................................................................................................... ............................ (214,203 ) (207,065 ) (∂207,065 ) (¥7,138 ) Information services .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ (63,010 ) (50,183 ) (∂50,183 ) (¥12,827 ) 

Facilities & equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) .............................................................................................. 2,730,731 2,870,000 2,630,731 ¥100,000 ¥239,269 

Facilities equipment .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ 250,000 ............................ ............................ ¥250,000 

Research, engineering, and development (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) ................................................................. 169,660 190,000 157,000 ¥12,660 ¥33,000 Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ....................... (3,550,000 ) (3,600,000 ) (4,691,000 ) (∂1,141,000 ) (∂1,091,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (3,515,000 ) (2,424,000 ) (3,515,000 ) ............................ (∂1,091,000 ) Administration ................................................................................................................................................... (93,422 ) (101,000 ) (101,000 ) (∂7,578 ) ............................Airport Cooperative Research Program ............................................................................................................. (15,000 ) (15,000 ) (15,000 ) ............................ ............................Airport technology research ............................................................................................................................... (22,472 ) (29,250 ) (29,250 ) (∂6,778 ) ............................Small community air service development program ........................................................................................ (6,000 ) ............................ (6,000 ) ............................ (∂6,000 ) 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (3,515,000 ) (2,424,000 ) (3,515,000 ) ............................ (∂1,091,000 ) 

Grants-in-aid for airports ................................................................................................................................. ............................ 3,100,000 ............................ ............................ ¥3,100,000 

Aviation insurance revolving fund (Sec. 115) ........................................................................................................... ............................ ¥1,000 ............................ ............................ ∂1,000 

Total, Federal Aviation Administration ......................................................................................................... 12,414,353 16,232,000 12,423,441 ∂9,088 ¥3,808,559 (Limitations on obligations) ......................................................................................................................... (3,515,000 ) (2,424,000 ) (3,515,000 ) ............................ (∂1,091,000 ) Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (15,929,353 ) (18,656,000 ) (15,938,441 ) (∂9,088 ) (¥2,717,559 ) 

Federal Highway Administration 

Limitation on administrative expenses ...................................................................................................................... (413,533 ) (437,172 ) (415,533 ) (∂2,000 ) (¥21,639 ) Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (41,846,000 ) (70,414,000 ) (41,846,000 ) ............................ (¥28,568,000 ) 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

172 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2011 appropriation Budget estimate 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... (41,107,000 ) (69,675,000 ) (41,107,000 ) ............................ (¥28,568,000 ) (Exempt contract authority) ..................................................................................................................... (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................

Wireless initiative ............................................................................................................................ ............................ 100,000 ............................ ............................ ¥100,000 

Emergency relief (disaster relief category) .............................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 1,900,000 ∂1,900,000 ∂1,900,000 

Rescission of contract authority (Highway Trust Fund) ............................................................................................ ¥2,500,000 ............................ ............................ ∂2,500,000 ............................Demonstration projects (rescission) ........................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥73,000 ¥73,000 ¥73,000 

(Rescission of contract authority) ..................................................................................................................... ¥630,000 ............................ ............................ ∂630,000 ............................

Total, Federal Highway Administration ......................................................................................................... ¥3,130,000 100,000 1,827,000 ∂4,957,000 ∂1,727,000 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... ............................ (100,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥100,000 ) Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ (¥3,130,000 ) ............................ ............................ (∂3,130,000 ) ............................

(Limitations on obligations) ......................................................................................................................... (41,107,000 ) (69,675,000 ) (41,107,000 ) ............................ (¥28,568,000 ) (Exempt contract authority) .......................................................................................................................... (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (38,716,000 ) (70,514,000 ) (43,673,000 ) (∂4,957,000 ) (¥26,841,000 ) 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ....... (245,000 ) (276,000 ) (250,023 ) (∂5,023 ) (¥25,977 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (245,000 ) (276,000 ) (250,023 ) (∂5,023 ) (¥25,977 ) 

Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) Contract authority ...................................................................... ............................ ............................ 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 

Rescission of contract authority ....................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥1,000 ¥1,000 ¥1,000 (Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (310,070 ) (330,000 ) (307,000 ) (¥3,070 ) (¥23,000 ) (Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (310,070 ) (330,000 ) (307,000 ) (¥3,070 ) (¥23,000 ) 

Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ...................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................(Limitations on obligations) ......................................................................................................................... (555,070 ) (606,000 ) (557,023 ) (∂1,953 ) (¥48,977 ) 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Operations and research (general fund) ................................................................................................................... 140,146 ............................ 140,146 ............................ ∂140,146 

Vehicle safety .................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Operations and research (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ......................................... (105,500 ) (303,900 ) (109,500 ) (∂4,000 ) (¥194,400 ) 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

173 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (105,500 ) (303,900 ) (109,500 ) (∂4,000 ) (¥194,400 ) 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (140,146 ) ............................ (140,146 ) ............................ (∂140,146 ) 

National driver register (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................................... (4,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥4,000 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (4,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥4,000 ) ............................

National driver register modernization ...................................................................................................................... 3,343 ............................ ............................ ¥3,343 ............................Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ................................. (619,500 ) (556,100 ) (550,328 ) (¥69,172 ) (¥5,772 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (619,500 ) (556,100 ) (550,328 ) (¥69,172 ) (¥5,772 ) 

Highway safety programs (23 USC 402) ................................................................................................. (235,000 ) (235,100 ) (235,000 ) ............................ (¥100 ) Occupant protection incentive grants (23 USC 405) .............................................................................. (25,000 ) (35,000 ) (25,000 ) ............................ (¥10,000 ) Safety belt performance grants (23 USC 406) ........................................................................................ (124,500 ) ............................ (38,500 ) (¥86,000 ) (∂38,500 ) Distracted driving prevention ................................................................................................................... ............................ (50,000 ) (10,000 ) (∂10,000 ) (¥40,000 ) State traffic safety information system improvement (23 USC 408) ..................................................... (34,500 ) (34,500 ) (34,500 ) ............................ ............................Impaired driving countermeasures (23 USC 410) ................................................................................... (139,000 ) (139,000 ) (139,000 ) ............................ ............................Grant administration ................................................................................................................................ (18,500 ) (18,600 ) (25,328 ) (∂6,828 ) (∂6,728 ) High visibility enforcement ...................................................................................................................... (29,000 ) (37,000 ) (29,000 ) ............................ (¥8,000 ) Child safety and booster seat grants ...................................................................................................... (7,000 ) ............................ (7,000 ) ............................ (∂7,000 ) Motorcyclist safety .................................................................................................................................... (7,000 ) (7,000 ) (7,000 ) ............................ ............................

Rescission of contract authority ....................................................................................................................... ¥76,000 ............................ ............................ ∂76,000 ............................

Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin ............................................................................................. 67,489 ............................ 140,146 ∂72,657 ∂140,146 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (143,489 ) ............................ (140,146 ) (¥3,343 ) (∂140,146 ) Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ (¥76,000 ) ............................ ............................ (∂76,000 ) ............................

(Limitations on obligations) ......................................................................................................................... (729,000 ) (860,000 ) (659,828 ) (¥69,172 ) (¥200,172 ) Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (796,489 ) (860,000 ) (799,974 ) (∂3,485 ) (¥60,026 ) 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety and operations ................................................................................................................................................ 176,596 223,034 176,596 ............................ ¥46,438 

Offsetting fee collections .................................................................................................................................. ............................ ¥80,000 ............................ ............................ ∂80,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 176,596 143,034 176,596 ............................ ∂33,562 

Railroad research and development .......................................................................................................................... 35,030 40,000 30,000 ¥5,030 ¥10,000 Rail line relocation and improvement program ......................................................................................................... 10,511 ............................ ............................ ¥10,511 ............................System preservation ................................................................................................................................................... ............................ 1,546,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,546,000 

Multi-year investment initiative ........................................................................................................................ ............................ 2,500,000 ............................ ............................ ¥2,500,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... ............................ 4,046,000 ............................ ............................ ¥4,046,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

174 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2011 appropriation Budget estimate 

Network Development ................................................................................................................................................. ............................ 1,000,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,000,000 

Multi-year investment initiative ........................................................................................................................ ............................ 3,000,000 ............................ ............................ ¥3,000,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... ............................ 4,000,000 ............................ ............................ ¥4,000,000 

Capital assistance for high speed rail corridors and intercity passenger rail service ............................................ ............................ ............................ 100,000 ∂100,000 ∂100,000 

Rescission .......................................................................................................................................................... ¥400,000 ............................ ............................ ∂400,000 ............................

Railroad safety technology ......................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Railroad safety ........................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................National Railroad Passenger Corporation: 

Operating grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ................................................................. 561,874 ............................ 544,000 ¥17,874 ∂544,000 Capital and debt service grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ......................................... 921,778 ............................ 936,778 ∂15,000 ∂936,778 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,483,652 ............................ 1,480,778 ¥2,874 ∂1,480,778 Total, Federal Railroad Administration ......................................................................................................... 1,305,789 8,229,034 1,787,374 ∂481,585 ¥6,441,660 

Federal Transit Administration 

Administrative expenses ............................................................................................................................................. 98,713 ............................ 98,713 ............................ ∂98,713 Formula and Bus Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account (Liquidation of contract authorization) ............ (9,400,000 ) ............................ (9,400,000 ) ............................ (∂9,400,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (8,343,171 ) ............................ (8,360,565 ) (∂17,394 ) (∂8,360,565 ) 

Research and technology deployment ........................................................................................................................ ............................ 166,472 ............................ ............................ ¥166,472 Transit Formula Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account (Liquidation of contract authorization) .............. ............................ (10,000,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥10,000,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ ............................ (4,691,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥4,691,000 ) 

Multi-year investment initiative ............................................................................................................... ............................ (3,000,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥3,000,000 ) 

Transit expansion and livable communities (liquidation of contract authorization) ................................................ ............................ (600,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥600,000 ) 

(limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ ............................ (2,469,070 ) ............................ ............................ (¥2,469,070 ) 

Capital investment grants 

Multi-year investment initiative ............................................................................................................... ............................ 1,000,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,000,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

175 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................ ............................ 1,000,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,000,000 

Operations and safety ................................................................................................................................................ ............................ 166,294 ............................ ............................ ¥166,294 

Administrative programs ................................................................................................................................... ............................ (129,700 ) ............................ ............................ (¥129,700 ) Rail transit safety programs ............................................................................................................................. ............................ (36,594 ) ............................ ............................ (¥36,594 ) 

Research and University Research Centers ............................................................................................................... 58,882 ............................ 40,000 ¥18,882 ∂40,000 Bus and rail state of good repair (liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................... ............................ (3,000,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥3,000,000 ) 

(limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ ............................ (3,207,178 ) ............................ ............................ (¥3,207,178 ) 

Multi-year investment initiative ............................................................................................................... ............................ (7,500,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥7,500,000 ) 

Capital investment grants ......................................................................................................................................... 1,596,800 ............................ 1,955,000 ∂358,200 ∂1,955,000 Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction grants. ......................................................................................... 49,900 ............................ 25,000 ¥24,900 ∂25,000 

(Rescission) ....................................................................................................................................................... ¥280,000 ............................ ¥27,000 ∂253,000 ¥27,000 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority capital and preventive maintenance ........................................... 149,700 150,000 150,000 ∂300 ............................

Total, Federal Transit Administration ........................................................................................................... 1,673,995 1,482,766 2,241,713 ∂567,718 ∂758,947 (Limitations on obligations) ......................................................................................................................... (8,343,171 ) (20,867,248 ) (8,360,565 ) (∂17,394 ) (¥12,506,683 ) Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (10,017,166 ) (22,350,014 ) (10,602,278 ) (∂585,112 ) (¥11,747,736 ) 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) .............................................................................. 32,259 33,996 34,000 ∂1,741 ∂4 

Maritime Administration 

Maritime security program ......................................................................................................................................... 173,652 174,000 174,000 ∂348 ............................Operations and training ............................................................................................................................................. 151,446 161,539 154,886 ∂3,440 ¥6,653 

(Rescission) ....................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥1,000 ¥1,000 ¥1,000 

Ship disposal .............................................................................................................................................................. 14,970 18,500 10,000 ¥4,970 ¥8,500 Assistance to small shipyards ................................................................................................................................... 9,980 ............................ 10,000 ∂20 ∂10,000 Vessel operations revolving fund ............................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account: 

Administrative expenses .................................................................................................................................... 3,992 3,740 4,000 ∂8 ∂260 Rescission .......................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥54,100 ¥35,000 ¥35,000 ∂19,100 Guaranteed loans subsidy ................................................................................................................................. 4,990 ............................ ............................ ¥4,990 ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 8,982 ¥50,360 ¥31,000 ¥39,982 ∂19,360 Total, Maritime Administration ..................................................................................................................... 359,030 303,679 316,886 ¥42,144 ∂13,207 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Administrative expenses: 

General Fund ..................................................................................................................................................... 21,454 22,158 22,158 ∂704 ............................

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

176 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2011 appropriation Budget estimate 

Pipeline Safety Fund ......................................................................................................................................... 638 639 ............................ ¥638 ¥639 Pipeline Safety information grants to communities ......................................................................................... (998 ) (1,000 ) (1,000 ) (∂2 ) ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 22,092 22,797 22,158 ∂66 ¥639 

Hazardous materials safety ....................................................................................................................................... 39,020 50,089 39,020 ............................ ¥11,069 

Offsetting fee collections .................................................................................................................................. ............................ ¥11,713 ............................ ............................ ∂11,713 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 39,020 38,376 39,020 ............................ ∂644 

Pipeline safety: 

Pipeline Safety Fund ......................................................................................................................................... 87,838 92,854 93,854 ∂6,016 ∂1,000 Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund ............................................................................................................................. 18,867 21,510 21,510 ∂2,643 ............................Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund (leg proposal) ......................................................................................... ............................ 4,000 3,000 ∂3,000 ¥1,000 Pipeline Safety Special Permit Fund (leg proposal) ......................................................................................... ............................ 500 ............................ ............................ ¥500 Pipeline safety user fees ................................................................................................................................... ¥88,014 ¥94,493 ¥94,493 ¥6,479 ............................Additional Pipeline user fees (leg proposal) .................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥4,500 ¥4,500 ¥4,500 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 18,691 24,371 19,371 ∂680 ¥5,000 

Emergency preparedness grants: 

Limitation on emergency preparedness fund ................................................................................................... (28,318 ) (28,318 ) (28,318 ) ............................ ............................

(Emergency preparedness fund) .............................................................................................................. (188 ) (188 ) (188 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ........................................................ 79,803 85,544 80,549 ∂746 ¥4,995 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

Research and development ........................................................................................................................................ 12,981 17,600 15,981 ∂3,000 ¥1,619 

Office of Inspector General 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 74,964 89,185 82,409 ∂7,445 ¥6,776 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

177 

Surface Transportation Board 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 29,010 31,250 29,310 ∂300 ¥1,940 

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ............................ ............................

Total, Surface Transportation Board ............................................................................................................ 27,760 30,000 28,060 ∂300 ¥1,940 Total, title I, Department of Transportation ................................................................................................. 13,725,974 33,893,153 19,807,134 ∂6,081,160 ¥14,086,019 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (17,611,974 ) (33,950,507 ) (18,046,388 ) (∂434,414 ) (¥15,904,119 ) Contract authority ................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ (1,000 ) (∂1,000 ) (∂1,000 ) Disaster relief category ........................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ (1,900,000 ) (∂1,900,000 ) (∂1,900,000 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥680,000 ) (¥57,354 ) (¥139,254 ) (∂540,746 ) (¥81,900 ) Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ (¥3,206,000 ) ............................ (¥1,000 ) (∂3,205,000 ) (¥1,000 ) 

(Limitations on obligations) ......................................................................................................................... (54,249,241 ) (94,432,248 ) (54,199,416 ) (¥49,825 ) (¥40,232,832 ) Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (68,714,215 ) (129,064,401 ) (74,745,550 ) (∂6,031,335 ) (¥54,318,851 ) 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Management and Administration 

Executive direction ..................................................................................................................................................... 26,801 30,408 ............................ ¥26,801 ¥30,408 Administration, operations and management ........................................................................................................... 523,990 530,117 549,499 ∂25,509 ∂19,382 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 523,990 530,117 549,499 ∂25,509 ∂19,382 

Personnel compensation and benefits: 

Public and Indian Housing ............................................................................................................................... 188,696 189,610 201,233 ∂12,537 ∂11,623 Community Planning and Development ............................................................................................................ 96,795 99,815 101,076 ∂4,281 ∂1,261 Housing .............................................................................................................................................................. 381,123 397,660 392,796 ∂11,673 ¥4,864 Office of the Government National Mortgage Association ............................................................................... 11,073 ............................ ............................ ¥11,073 ............................Policy Development and Research .................................................................................................................... 19,100 21,390 23,016 ∂3,916 ∂1,626 Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ................................................................................................................ 71,656 70,733 74,766 ∂3,110 ∂4,033 Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control .......................................................................................... 7,137 7,167 7,502 ∂365 ∂335 Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities ............................................................................................ ............................ 3,100 ............................ ............................ ¥3,100 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 775,580 789,475 800,389 ∂24,809 ∂10,914 Total, Management and Administration ....................................................................................................... 1,326,371 1,350,000 1,349,888 ∂23,517 ¥112 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

178 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2011 appropriation Budget estimate 

Public and Indian Housing 

Tenant-based rental assistance: 

Renewals ........................................................................................................................................................... 16,669,283 17,143,837 17,143,905 ∂474,622 ∂68 Tenant protection vouchers ............................................................................................................................... 109,780 75,000 75,000 ¥34,780 ............................Administrative fees ........................................................................................................................................... 1,447,100 1,647,780 1,400,000 ¥47,100 ¥247,780 Family self-sufficiency coordinators ................................................................................................................. 59,880 60,000 60,000 ∂120 ............................Veterans affairs supportive housing ................................................................................................................. 49,900 75,000 75,000 ∂25,100 ............................Sec. 811 Mainstream voucher renewals ........................................................................................................... 34,930 114,046 113,452 ∂78,522 ¥594 Disaster housing assistance program .............................................................................................................. ............................ 50,000 ............................ ............................ ¥50,000 Homeless vouchers demonstration program ..................................................................................................... ............................ 56,906 5,000 ∂5,000 ¥51,906 

Subtotal (available this fiscal year) ............................................................................................................ 18,370,873 19,222,569 18,872,357 ∂501,484 ¥350,212 

Advance appropriations ..................................................................................................................................... 3,992,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 ∂8,000 ............................Less appropriations from prior year advances ................................................................................................. ¥4,000,000 ¥4,000,000 ¥4,000,000 ............................ ............................

Total, Tenant-based rental assistance appropriated in this bill ................................................................ 18,362,873 19,222,569 18,872,357 ∂509,484 ¥350,212 

Transforming rental assistance demonstration program .......................................................................................... ............................ 200,000 ............................ ............................ ¥200,000 Public Housing Capital Fund ..................................................................................................................................... 2,040,112 2,405,345 1,875,000 ¥165,112 ¥530,345 Public Housing Operating Fund ................................................................................................................................. 4,616,748 3,961,850 3,961,850 ¥654,898 ............................Revitalization of severely distressed public housing ................................................................................................ 99,800 ............................ ............................ ¥99,800 ............................Choice neighborhoods ................................................................................................................................................ ............................ 250,000 120,000 ∂120,000 ¥130,000 Native American housing block grants ...................................................................................................................... 648,700 700,000 650,000 ∂1,300 ¥50,000 Native Hawaiian housing block grant ....................................................................................................................... 12,974 10,000 13,000 ∂26 ∂3,000 Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account ............................................................................................ 6,986 7,000 7,000 ∂14 ............................

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (919,000 ) (428,000 ) (428,000 ) (¥491,000 ) ............................

Native Hawaiian loan guarantee fund program account .......................................................................................... 1,042 ............................ 386 ¥656 ∂386 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (41,504 ) ............................ (41,504 ) ............................ (∂41,504 ) 

Housing Certificate Fund ........................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Rescission .......................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥200,000 ¥200,000 ¥200,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

179 

Total, Public and Indian Housing ................................................................................................................. 25,789,235 26,756,764 25,299,593 ¥489,642 ¥1,457,171 

Community Planning and Development 

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS ............................................................................................................ 334,330 335,000 330,000 ¥4,330 ¥5,000 Community development fund: CDBG formula .......................................................................................................... 3,336,314 3,691,368 2,851,027 ¥485,287 ¥840,341 

Indian CDBG ...................................................................................................................................................... 64,870 65,000 60,000 ¥4,870 ¥5,000 Sustainable Communities ................................................................................................................................. 99,800 ............................ 90,000 ¥9,800 ∂90,000 Disaster (Disaster relief category) .................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 400,000 ∂400,000 ∂400,000 Rural Innovation Fund ....................................................................................................................................... ............................ 25,000 ............................ ............................ ¥25,000 

Total, Community Development Fund ........................................................................................................... 3,500,984 3,781,368 3,401,027 ¥99,957 ¥380,341 

Community development loan guarantees (Section 108): 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (275,000 ) (500,000 ) (200,000 ) (¥75,000 ) (¥300,000 ) Credit subsidy ................................................................................................................................................... 5,988 ............................ 4,960 ¥1,028 ∂4,960 

Capacity building ....................................................................................................................................................... ............................ 50,000 ............................ ............................ ¥50,000 HOME investment partnerships program ................................................................................................................... 1,606,780 1,650,000 1,000,000 ¥606,780 ¥650,000 Self-help and assisted homeownership opportunity program ................................................................................... 81,836 ............................ 57,000 ¥24,836 ∂57,000 Homeless assistance grants ...................................................................................................................................... 1,901,190 2,372,000 1,901,190 ............................ ¥470,810 

Total, Community Planning and Development ............................................................................................. 7,431,108 8,188,368 6,694,177 ¥736,931 ¥1,494,191 

Housing Programs 

Project-based rental assistance: 

Renewals ........................................................................................................................................................... 8,932,100 9,139,672 9,129,672 ∂197,572 ¥10,000 Contract administrators .................................................................................................................................... 325,348 289,000 289,000 ¥36,348 ............................

Subtotal (available this fiscal year) ............................................................................................................ 9,257,448 9,428,672 9,418,672 ∂161,224 ¥10,000 

Advance appropriations ..................................................................................................................................... 400,000 400,000 400,000 ............................ ............................Less appropriations from prior year advances ................................................................................................. ¥392,885 ¥400,000 ¥400,000 ¥7,115 ............................

Total, Project-based rental assistance appropriated in this bill ................................................................ 9,264,563 9,428,672 9,418,672 ∂154,109 ¥10,000 

Housing for the elderly ............................................................................................................................................... 399,200 757,000 369,627 ¥29,573 ¥387,373 Housing for persons with disabilities ........................................................................................................................ 149,700 196,000 150,000 ∂300 ¥46,000 Housing counseling assistance .................................................................................................................................. ............................ 88,000 60,000 ∂60,000 ¥28,000 Rental housing assistance ......................................................................................................................................... 39,920 15,733 1,300 ¥38,620 ¥14,433 Rent supplement (rescission) .................................................................................................................................... ¥40,600 ¥6,600 ¥231,600 ¥191,000 ¥225,000 Manufactured housing fees trust fund ...................................................................................................................... 15,982 14,000 9,000 ¥6,982 ¥5,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

180 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2011 appropriation Budget estimate 

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥7,000 ¥7,000 ¥4,000 ∂3,000 ∂3,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 8,982 7,000 5,000 ¥3,982 ¥2,000 Total, Housing Programs .............................................................................................................................. 9,821,765 10,485,805 9,772,999 ¥48,766 ¥712,806 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (9,869,365 ) (10,499,405 ) (10,008,599 ) (∂139,234 ) (¥490,806 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥40,600 ) (¥6,600 ) (¥231,600 ) (¥191,000 ) (¥225,000 ) Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................... (¥7,000 ) (¥7,000 ) (¥4,000 ) (∂3,000 ) (∂3,000 ) 

Federal Housing Administration 

FHA—Mutual mortgage insurance program account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (400,000,000 ) (400,000,000 ) (400,000,000 ) ............................ ............................(Limitation on direct loans) .............................................................................................................................. (50,000 ) (50,000 ) (50,000 ) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥960,000 ¥4,427,000 ¥4,427,000 ¥3,467,000 ............................Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM) (Sec. 210) .............................................................................................. ............................ ¥286,000 ¥286,000 ¥286,000 ............................Additional offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................ ¥2,076,000 ............................ ............................ ∂2,076,000 ............................Additional offsetting receipts (Sec. 145) .......................................................................................................... ¥35,000 ............................ ............................ ∂35,000 ............................Administrative contract expenses ..................................................................................................................... 206,586 230,000 206,586 ............................ ¥23,414 Working capital fund (transfer out) .................................................................................................................. (¥70,652 ) (¥72,000 ) (¥70,652 ) ............................ (∂1,348 ) 

FHA—General and special risk program account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (20,000,000 ) (25,000,000 ) (25,000,000 ) (∂5,000,000 ) ............................(Limitation on direct loans) .............................................................................................................................. (20,000 ) (20,000 ) (20,000 ) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥315,000 ¥400,000 ¥400,000 ¥85,000 ............................Credit subsidy ................................................................................................................................................... 8,583 8,600 ............................ ¥8,583 ¥8,600 

Total, Federal Housing Administration ......................................................................................................... ¥3,170,831 ¥4,874,400 ¥4,906,414 ¥1,735,583 ¥32,014 

Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) 

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (500,000,000 ) (500,000,000 ) (500,000,000 ) ............................ ............................Administrative expenses (legislative proposal) ................................................................................................ ............................ 30,000 20,000 ∂20,000 ¥10,000 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

181 

Offsetting receipts (legislative proposal) ......................................................................................................... ............................ ¥100,000 ¥100,000 ¥100,000 ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥720,000 ¥521,000 ¥521,000 ∂199,000 ............................Offsetting receipts (Sec. 145) ........................................................................................................................... ¥9,000 ............................ ............................ ∂9,000 ............................Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM) (Sec. 210) .............................................................................................. ............................ ¥24,000 ¥24,000 ¥24,000 ............................

Total, Gov’t National Mortgage Association ................................................................................................. ¥729,000 ¥615,000 ¥625,000 ∂104,000 ¥10,000 

Policy Development and Research 

Research and technology ........................................................................................................................................... 47,904 57,000 45,825 ¥2,079 ¥11,175 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 

Fair housing activities ............................................................................................................................................... 71,856 72,000 64,287 ¥7,569 ¥7,713 

Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes 

Lead hazard reduction ............................................................................................................................................... 119,760 140,000 120,000 ∂240 ¥20,000 

Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities 

Sustainable Housing Initiative ................................................................................................................................... ............................ 150,000 ............................ ............................ ¥150,000 

Management and Administration 

Working capital fund .................................................................................................................................................. 199,600 243,000 199,035 ¥565 ¥43,965 

(By transfer) ...................................................................................................................................................... (70,652 ) (72,000 ) (70,652 ) ............................ (¥1,348 ) 

Office of Inspector General ........................................................................................................................................ 124,750 126,455 124,750 ............................ ¥1,705 Transformation initiative ............................................................................................................................................ 70,858 ............................ ............................ ¥70,858 ............................

Total, Management and Administration ....................................................................................................... 395,208 369,455 323,785 ¥71,423 ¥45,670 (Grand total, Management and Administration) .......................................................................................... (1,721,579 ) (1,719,455 ) (1,673,673 ) (¥47,906 ) (¥45,782 ) 

Rescission of prior year advance(net restricted assets ............................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ¥750,000 ¥750,000 ¥750,000 

Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Development .................................................................. 41,103,376 42,079,992 37,389,140 ¥3,714,236 ¥4,690,852 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (40,873,976 ) (43,451,592 ) (39,532,740 ) (¥1,341,236 ) (¥3,918,852 ) Disaster relief category ........................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ (400,000 ) (∂400,000 ) (∂400,000 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥40,600 ) (¥6,600 ) (¥431,600 ) (¥391,000 ) (¥425,000 ) Rescission of prior year advance ........................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ (¥750,000 ) (¥750,000 ) (¥750,000 ) Advance appropriations ....................................................................................................................... (4,392,000 ) (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) (∂8,000 ) ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................... (¥4,115,000 ) (¥5,758,000 ) (¥5,758,000 ) (¥1,643,000 ) ............................Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................... (¥7,000 ) (¥7,000 ) (¥4,000 ) (∂3,000 ) (∂3,000 ) 

(By transfer) .................................................................................................................................................. (70,652 ) (72,000 ) (70,652 ) ............................ (¥1,348 ) (Transfer out) ................................................................................................................................................ (¥70,652 ) (¥72,000 ) (¥70,652 ) ............................ (∂1,348 ) 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

182 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2011 appropriation Budget estimate 

(Limitation on direct loans) .......................................................................................................................... (70,000 ) (70,000 ) (70,000 ) ............................ ............................(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................................................................................. (921,235,504 ) (925,928,000 ) (925,669,504 ) (∂4,434,000 ) (¥258,496 ) 

TITLE III—OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Access Board .............................................................................................................................................................. 7,285 7,400 7,400 ∂115 ............................Federal Maritime Commission .................................................................................................................................... 24,087 26,265 24,100 ∂13 ¥2,165 National Transportation Safety Board salaries and National Transportation Board ................................................ 97,854 102,400 99,275 ∂1,421 ¥3,125 Amtrak Office of Inspector General ........................................................................................................................... 19,311 22,000 19,311 ............................ ¥2,689 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ................................................................................................................... 232,534 215,300 200,000 ¥32,534 ¥15,300 United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ................................................................................................ 2,675 3,880 3,640 ∂965 ¥240 Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (Sec. 146) .......................................................................................................................... 155,000 ............................ ............................ ¥155,000 ............................

Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies ................................................................................................. 538,746 377,245 353,726 ¥185,020 ¥23,519 Grand total (net) ........................................................................................................................................... 55,368,096 76,350,390 57,550,000 ∂2,181,904 ¥18,800,390 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (59,024,696 ) (77,779,344 ) (57,932,854 ) (¥1,091,842 ) (¥19,846,490 ) Contract authority ................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ (1,000 ) (∂1,000 ) (∂1,000 ) Disaster relief category ........................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ (2,300,000 ) (∂2,300,000 ) (∂2,300,000 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥720,600 ) (¥63,954 ) (¥570,854 ) (∂149,746 ) (¥506,900 ) Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ (¥3,206,000 ) ............................ (¥1,000 ) (∂3,205,000 ) (¥1,000 ) Rescission of prior year advance ........................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ (¥750,000 ) (¥750,000 ) (¥750,000 ) Advance appropriations ....................................................................................................................... (4,392,000 ) (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) (∂8,000 ) ............................Negative subsidy receipts .................................................................................................................... (¥4,115,000 ) (¥5,758,000 ) (¥5,758,000 ) (¥1,643,000 ) ............................Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................... (¥7,000 ) (¥7,000 ) (¥4,000 ) (∂3,000 ) (∂3,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ........................................................................................................................... (54,249,241 ) (94,432,248 ) (54,199,416 ) (¥49,825 ) (¥40,232,832 ) (By transfer) .................................................................................................................................................. (70,652 ) (72,000 ) (70,652 ) ............................ (¥1,348 ) 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

183 

(Transfer out) ................................................................................................................................................ (¥70,652 ) (¥72,000 ) (¥70,652 ) ............................ (∂1,348 ) Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (109,617,337 ) (170,782,638 ) (111,749,416 ) (∂2,132,079 ) (¥59,033,222 ) 

Æ 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING