74–607 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–541 

DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2013 

JUNE 20, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. LATHAM, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5972] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the 

Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2013. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Title I—Department of Transportation .................................................... 2 5 

Title II—Department of Housing and Urban Development ................... 71 71 

Title III—Related Agencies ....................................................................... 134 106 

Title IV—General Provisions .................................................................... 142 111 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY 

During fiscal year 2013, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget 

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

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

mean any item for which a dollar amount is contained in appropriations acts (including joint resolutions providing continuing apVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:48 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

propriations) or accompanying reports of the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports 

and joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. 

This definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget 

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

grants and discretionary grant allocations made through either bill 

or report language. In addition, the percentage reductions made 

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

in the budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate 

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

OPERATING PLANS AND REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES 

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

authority by which funding available to the agencies funded by this 

act may be reprogrammed for other purposes. The provision specifically requires the advance approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of any proposal to reprogram funds that: 

—creates a new program; 

—eliminates a program, project, or activity (PPA); 

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

been denied or restricted by the Congress; 

—redirects funds that were directed in such reports for a specific 

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

—creates, reorganizes, or restructures offices different from the 

congressional budget justifications or the table at the end of 

the Committee report, whichever is more detailed. 

The Committee retains the requirement that each agency submit 

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

authorities provided in this act. Specifically, each agency must provide a table for each appropriation with columns displaying the 

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

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

The report also must identify items of special Congressional interest. In certain instances, the Committee may direct the agency to 

submit a revised operating plan for approval or may direct changes 

to the operating plan if the plan is not consistent with the directives of the conference report and statement of the managers. 

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

justification of increases and reductions and the specific impact of 

proposed changes on the budget request for the following fiscal 

year. Any reprogramming request shall include any out-year budgVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

etary impacts and a separate accounting of program or mission impacts on estimated carryover funds. Reprogramming procedures 

shall apply to funds provided in this bill, unobligated balances from 

previous appropriations Acts that are available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2013, and non-appropriated resources such 

as fee collections that are used to meet program requirements in 

fiscal year 2013. 

The Committee expects each agency to manage its programs and 

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

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

budget request for the current fiscal year. Except in emergency situations, reprogramming requests should be submitted no later 

than June 28, 2013. Further, the Committee notes that when a Department or agency submits a reprogramming or transfer request 

to the Committees on Appropriations and does not receive identical 

responses from the House and Senate, it is the responsibility of the 

Department to reconcile the House and Senate differences before 

proceeding and, if reconciliation is not possible, to consider the request to reprogram funds unapproved. 

The Committee would also like to clarify that this section applies 

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

working capital fund accounts to augment programs, projects or activities for which appropriations have been specifically rejected by 

the Congress, or to increase funds or personnel for any PPA above 

the amounts appropriated by this act. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS 

Budget justifications are the primary tool used by the House and 

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

that the format and presentation of budget materials is largely left 

to the agency within presentation objectives set forth by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). In fact, OMB Circular A–11, 

part 6 specifically instructs agencies to ‘‘consult with your congressional committees beforehand to ensure their awareness of your 

plans to modify the format of agency budget documents.’’ The Committee expects that all agencies funded under this act will heed 

this directive. The Committee expects all of the budget justifications to provide the data needed to make appropriate and meaningful funding decisions. 

While the Committee values the inclusion of performance data 

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

2014 budget request by agencies funded under this act contain the 

customary level of detailed data and explanatory statements to 

support the appropriations requests at the level of detail contained 

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

other items, agencies shall provide a detailed discussion of proposed new initiatives, proposed changes in the agency’s financial 

plan from prior year enactment, detailed data on all programs, and 

comprehensive information on any office or agency restructurings. 

At a minimum, each agency must also provide adequate justificaVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

tion for funding and staffing changes for each individual office and 

materials that compare programs, projects, and activities that are 

proposed for fiscal year 2014 to the fiscal year 2013 enacted levels. 

The Committee is aware that the analytical materials required 

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

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

advance on its planned presentation for its budget justification materials in support of the fiscal year 2014 budget request. 

SURFACE AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION 

There are no words to adequately describe the absolute necessity 

for the enactment of a multi-year surface authorization bill in the 

immediate future. For years, stakeholders, the Congress, the committees of jurisdiction and the Department of Transportation have 

sounded the alarm on the status of the Highway Trust Fund and 

the need to decide on a meaningful reauthorization package. We 

are literally at the end of the road. While some may say both the 

House and Senate proposals are far from perfect, at least the Congress is making a serious attempt to address the problem, albeit 

only through fiscal year 2013. Every president since Eisenhower 

has formally submitted to the Congress a highway bill, except the 

current Administration. The Congress and the public have seen 

ideas and concepts, but never a complete package with a serious 

method of funding the programs. The Committee has made recommendations for all of the transportation programs in this bill, 

and is optimistic that serious and rational people will come together to find a resolution in time for the funding levels in this bill 

to take effect. 

In order to be aware of how funds are allocated and spent, the 

Committee directs the Department of Transportation to report to 

the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 

and the Senate within 45 days of enactment of any surface extension or reauthorization on how the Department will enact the provisions of such extension or reauthorization, the allocations by 

state, and the effects on the accounts in the Highway Trust Fund. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(5) 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $102,481,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 110,450,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 108,277,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +5,796,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... ¥2,173,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill provides $108,277,000 for the salaries and expenses of 

the offices comprising the Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

(OST). The Committee’s recommendation is $5,796,000 greater 

than the appropriation provided in fiscal year 2012, and $2,173,000 

below the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation includes individual funding for each of these offices as has been done 

in prior years. Increases are primarily due to inflation, an extra 

compensable workday, and increases in rent and working capital 

fund expenses. The following table (dollars in thousands) compares 

the fiscal year 2012 enacted level to the fiscal year 2013 budget request and the Committee’s recommendation by office. 

Fiscal year— 

2012 enacted 2013 request 2013 

recommendation 

Office of the Secretary ......................................................................... $2,618 $2,635 $2,635 

Deputy Secretary .................................................................................. 984 992 992 

Executive Secretariat ........................................................................... 1,595 1,701 1,701 

Policy .................................................................................................... 10,107 11,248 11,248 

Small Business .................................................................................... 1,369 1,539 1,539 

Intelligence and Security ..................................................................... 10,778 10,875 10,875 

Chief Information Officer ..................................................................... 14,988 15,117 15,117 

General Counsel ................................................................................... 19,515 19,615 19,615 

Government Affairs .............................................................................. 2,500 2,601 2,601 

Budget .................................................................................................. 10,538 13,201 12,825 

Administration ...................................................................................... 25,469 28,672 27,095 

Public Affairs ....................................................................................... 2,020 2,254 2,034 

Total Salaries and Expenses .................................................. 102,481 110,450 108,277 

Immediate Office of the Secretary.—The immediate Office of the 

Secretary has primary responsibility to provide overall planning, 

direction, and control of departmental affairs. 

Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary.—The Office of the Deputy Secretary has primary responsibility to assist the Secretary in 

the overall planning, direction, and control of departmental affairs. 

The Deputy Secretary serves as the chief operating officer of the 

Department of Transportation. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

Executive Secretariat.—The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in carrying out their responsibilities 

by controlling and coordinating internal and external documents. 

Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy.—The 

Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy serves as 

the Department’s chief policy officer, and is responsible for the coordination and development of departmental policy and legislative 

initiatives; international standards development and harmonization; aviation and other transportation-related trade negotiations; the performance of policy and economic analysis; and the 

execution of the Essential Air Service program. 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.—The 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization is responsible for promoting small and disadvantaged business participation 

in the Department’s procurement and grants programs. 

Office of the Chief Information Officer.—The Office of the Chief 

Information Officer serves as the principal advisor to the Secretary 

on information resources and information systems management. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs.—The 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs is responsible for coordinating all Congressional, intergovernmental, 

and consumer activities of the Department. 

In addition, the bill continues a provision (Sec. 185) that requires 

the Department to notify the Committees on Appropriations no 

fewer than three business days before any discretionary grant 

award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement in excess 

of $1,000,000 is announced by the Department or its modal administrations from: (1) any discretionary program of the Federal Highway Administration other than the emergency relief program; (2) 

the airport improvement program of the Federal Aviation Administration; (3) any grant from the Federal Railroad Administration; 

and (4) any program of the Federal Transit Administration other 

than the formula grants and fixed guideway modernization programs. Such notification shall include the date on which the official 

announcement of the grant is to be made and no such announcement shall involve funds that are not available for obligation. 

Office of the General Counsel.—The Office of the General Counsel 

provides legal services to the Office of the Secretary and coordinates and reviews the legal work of the chief counsels’ offices of the 

operating administrations. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.—The 

Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is responsible for developing, reviewing, and presenting budget resource requirements 

for the Department to the Secretary, Congress, and the Office of 

Management and Budget. Of the funds provided, $2,300,000 is for 

the establishment of a credit office to evaluate the applications for 

the Department’s various credit accounts and oversee the vast loan 

portfolio. The Committee’s recommendation does not include funding for additional contractual services. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.—The Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Administration serves as the principal advisor to the Secretary on department-wide administrative 

matters and her responsibilities include leadership in acquisition 

reform and human capital. The Committee’s recommendation inVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

cludes funding for adjustments to the base and the proposed procurement reviews. 

Office of Public Affairs.—The Office of Public Affairs is responsible for the Department’s press releases, articles, briefing materials, publications, and audio-visual materials. The Committee’s 

recommendation does not include additional funds for speechwriting contracts, social media services and news clipping services. 

Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response.—The 

Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response was established in fiscal year 2005 by merging the Secretary’s Office of 

Intelligence and Security with the Research and Special Program 

Administration’s Office of Emergency Transportation. This office is 

responsible for intelligence, security policy, preparedness, training 

and exercises, national security, and operations. 

Congressional Budget Justifications.—The Committee will give 

serious consideration to the fiscal year 2014 budget proposal only 

if proposed legislation, including a method for paying for any program changes, is transmitted concurrently with the budget in February 2013. The Department is directed to include in the budget 

justification funding levels for the prior year, current year, and 

budget year for all programs, activities, initiatives, and program 

elements. Each budget submitted by the Department must also include a detailed justification for the incremental funding increases 

and additional FTEs being requested above the enacted level, by 

program, activity, or program element. 

OST must include a discussion in its justification of changes from 

the current year to the request, plus a crosswalk of all accounts, 

existing and proposed, from one year to the next. To ensure that 

each adjustment is identified, the Committee directs OST in future 

congressional justifications to include detailed information in tabular format, which identifies specific changes in funding from the 

current year to the budget year for each office, including each office 

within OST, and every mode and office within the Department. 

Operating Plan.—The Committee directs the Department to submit an operating plan for fiscal year 2013 signed by the Secretary 

for review by the Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of 

the bill’s enactment. The operating plan should include funding levels for the various offices, programs, and initiatives detailed down 

to the object class or program element covered in the budget justification and supporting documents, documents referenced in the 

House and Senate appropriations reports, and the statement of the 

managers. Further, should the Department create, alter, discontinue, or otherwise change any program as described in the Department’s budget justification, those changes must be a part of the 

Department’s operating plan. Further, the Department is directed 

the introduction of the report regarding reporting requirements 

after enactment of surface authorizations. 

General Provisions.—The Committee continues to direct DOT to 

justify each general provision proposed either in its relevant modal 

congressional justification or in the OST congressional justification. 

If the budget proposes to drop or delete a general provision, the Department is directed to explain the change as well. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

Bill Language.—The bill continues language that permits up to 

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

salaries and expenses. 

LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... $5,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥5,000,000 

The goal of the livable communities program is to promote livable communities through investment in transportation infrastructure to decrease transportation costs; improve access to jobs and 

services; promote healthy communities; improve air quality; protect 

the natural environment; and enhance the unique characteristics of 

communities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation does not include funding for the 

Livable Communities Office in fiscal year 2013, just as no funds 

have been provided in any prior fiscal year. The budget proposed 

$5,000,000 for this purpose. Zoning and planning activities are best 

and currently conducted at the local level. Various existing grant 

programs within the Department allow for planning activities and 

localities are free to utilize already available funds as they see fit. 

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $500,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 500,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥500,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥500,000,000 

The National Infrastructure Investment program was created in 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to provide 

grants to state and local governments to improve the Nation’s 

transportation infrastructure. The infrastructure investment program awards funds on a competitive basis to grantees selected because of the significant impact they will have on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or region. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend additional funds for the national infrastructure investment program (also known as ‘‘TIGER 

grants’’) as proposed by the budget request. The Congress appropriated $500,000,000 for this purpose in fiscal year 2012. While the 

Committee agrees that the Nation is in desperate need for infrastructure investment and improvements, the Administration has 

yet to demonstrate or define the process, priority or criteria for how 

these grants are awarded. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $4,990,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 10,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +5,010,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The Financial Management Capital program continues funding 

for a multi-year project to upgrade DOT’s financial systems and 

processes. The project will implement Treasury Department and 

Office of Management and Budget requirements. Deployment of the 

new system is anticipated in 2014. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

This Committee recommends the budget request of $10,000,000 for financial management capital program, which is $5,010,000 

above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Appropriations, fiscal year 2012 ....................................................... $10,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 6,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 6,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥4,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The Cyber Security Initiative is a new effort to close performance 

gaps in the Department’s cybersecurity. The initiative includes support for essential program enhancements, infrastructure improvements and contractual resources to enhance the security of the Department’s computer network and reduce the risk of security 

breaches. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $6,000,000 to support 

the Secretary’s Cyber Security Initiative, which is equal to the 

budget request and $4,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $9,384,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 9,773,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 9,773,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +389,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

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

the full implementation of the civil rights laws and departmental 

civil rights policies in all official actions and programs. This office 

is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally operated and federally assisted transportation programs and enabling access to transportation providers. 

The Office of Civil Rights also handles all civil rights cases affecting Department of Transportation employees. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $9,773,000 for 

the office of civil rights, which is $389,000 over the fiscal year 2012 

appropriation. 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $9,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥1,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥2,000,000 

This appropriation finances research activities and studies related to the planning, analysis, and information development used 

in the formulation of national transportation policies and plans. It 

also finances the staff necessary to conduct these efforts. The overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with other 

federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private firms. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,000,000 for 

transportation planning, research and development, which is 

$1,000,000 below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and $2,000,000 

below the level proposed in the fiscal year 2013 budget. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, fiscal year 2012 ............................................................... $172,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 174,128,000 

Bill compared with: 

Limitation, fiscal year 2012 ........................................................ +2,128,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ +174,128,000 

The working capital fund was created to provide common administrative services to the operating administrations and outside entities that contract for the fund’s services. The working capital fund 

operates on a fee-for-service basis and receives no direct appropriations; it is fully self-sustaining and must achieve full cost recovery. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $174,128,000 on the 

Working Capital Fund (WCF), the same level as proposed in the 

budget if all of the WCF expenditures were added up. WCF costs 

are anticipated to increase $2,128,000 over fiscal year 2012. The 

Administration did not propose a WCF legislative limitation. The 

Committee continues to stipulate that the limitation is only for 

services provided to the Department of Transportation, not other 

entities. Further, the Committee directs that, as much as possible, 

services shall be provided on a competitive basis. 

The Committee continues the direction to update the WCF 

‘‘transparency paper’’ in the fiscal year 2014 budget justification. 

The Committee finds the information contained in the annual 

paper to be extremely useful when evaluating the needs and proposals of the various offices. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriation Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .......................................................................................... $922,000 ($18,367,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................................................... 1,285,000 (21,955,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................................................... 1,285,000 (21,955,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ................................................................................. +363,000 (+3,588,00) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 .............................................................................. – – – – – – 

Through the Short Term Lending Program, the minority business resource center assists disadvantaged, minority, and womenowned businesses with obtaining short-term working capital for 

DOT and DOT-funded transportation-related contracts. The program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at two percentage points above the prime interest rate with DOT guaranteeing up 

to 75 percent of the loan. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $418,000 to 

cover the subsidy costs of guaranteed loans and $867,000 for administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan program for 

a total appropriation of $1,285,000, which is $363,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The Committee recommends a 

limitation on guaranteed loans of $21,955,000, the same as the 

budget request, and $3,588,000 over fiscal year 2012. 

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $3,068,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 3,234,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,234,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +166,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The minority business outreach program provides contractual 

support to small and disadvantaged businesses by providing information dissemination and technical and financial assistance to empower those businesses to compete for contracting opportunities 

with DOT and DOT-funded contracts or grants for transportationrelated projects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $3,234,000 for 

the minority business outreach program, which is $166,000 greater 

than fiscal year 2012. The Committee directs the Department to 

expand its outreach efforts in rural areas. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $143,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 114,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 114,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥29,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The Essential Air Service program (EAS) was created by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a ten-year measure to continue air 

service to communities that had received air service prior to deregulation. The program currently provides subsidies to air carriers 

serving small communities that meet certain criteria. 

The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 

authorized the collection of ‘‘overflight fees’’. Overflight fees are a 

type of user fee collected by the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) from aircraft that neither take off from, nor land in, the 

United States. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 increased the authorized level of overflight fee collection, and increased the amount that the Department can apply to the EAS program. The budget request estimates that this would increase the 

mandatory funding for this program from $50 million in FY 2012 

to at least $100 million in FY 2013. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends a total EAS 

program funding level of $214,000,000. This consists of a general 

fund appropriation of $114,000,000, and $100,000,000 to be derived 

from overflight fee collections. The Committee’s recommendation 

for the EAS program is $71,000,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and equal to the fiscal year 2013 request. 

The following table shows the discretionary, mandatory, and 

total program levels for the EAS program: 

Appropriation Mandatory Total Program 

FY 2012 appropriation ............................................................................... $143,000,000 $50,000,000 $193,000,000 

FY 2013 request ........................................................................................ 114,000,000 100,000,000 214,000,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 114,000,000 100,000,000 214,000,000 

The Committee believes the funding level provided is sufficient 

to serve all eligible EAS communities. However, the Committee recommendation includes language allowing a transfer of funds into 

this program from funds provided to the Office of the Secretary. 

The Committee includes the Department’s proposal to limit the 

EAS program to only those communities being served between September 30, 2010 and September 30, 2011. The Committee remains 

concerned about the growing costs associated with the EAS program. While limiting the program to current sites and eliminating 

the requirement that EAS carriers utilize 15-passenger aircraft 

have helped mitigate some of the cost growth, the Committee believes that the Department should continue to explore reforms to 

the program that will create greater competition among carriers 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

and control overall costs. The Committee directs the Secretary to 

provide a letter report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 15, 2013 that describes measures that could 

increase competition for EAS providers and help contain additional 

cost growth. For example, the Department should explore whether 

the EAS requirement that carriers utilize twin engine aircraft 

should be modified to allow single engine aircraft as long as safety 

is not compromised. The Committee understands that some communities have requested a waiver from the twin engine requirement and is interested to learn whether these waivers have helped 

preserve service and keep overall costs under control. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF

TRANSPORTATION

Section 101. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from approving assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the operating administrations in this Act, unless such 

assessments or agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification. 

Section 102. The Committee continues the provision allowing the 

Secretary or his designee to work with States and State legislators 

to consider proposals related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities. 

Section 103. The Committee continues the provision allowing the 

Department to use the Working Capital Fund to provide transit 

benefits to Federal employees. 

Section 104. The Committee continues the provision regarding 

administrative requirements of DOT’s Credit Council. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the 

safety and development of civil aviation and for the evolution of a 

national system of airports. The Federal Government’s regulatory 

role in civil aviation began with the creation of an Aeronautics 

Branch within the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air 

Commerce Act of 1926. This Act instructed the Secretary of Commerce to foster air commerce; designate and establish airways; establish, operate, and maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness 

certificates for aircraft and major aircraft components; and investigate civil aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, 

these activities were subsumed into a new, independent agency 

named the Civil Aeronautics Authority. 

After further administrative reorganizations, Congress streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the creation of two separate 

agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and the Civil Aeronautics 

Board. When the Department of Transportation began its operations on April 1, 1967, the Federal Aviation Agency was renamed 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and became one of several modal administrations within the department. The Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of the Airline 

Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased to exist at the end of 1984. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

FAA’s mission expanded in 1995 with the transfer of the Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation from the Office of the Secretary 

and contracted in December 2001 with the transfer of civil aviation 

security activities to the new Transportation Security Administration. 

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 authorized FAA 

programs through 2015 with several new mandates to improve the 

National Airspace System (NAS), including provisions regarding 

the NextGen program for Air Traffic Control and provisions regarding the use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) in civilian airspace. 

OPERATIONS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $9,653,395,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 9,718,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 9,718,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. 64,605,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

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

managerial costs for the FAA’s regulatory, international, medical, 

engineering and development programs as well as policy oversight 

and overall management functions. 

The operations appropriation includes the following major activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a national air traffic 

system; (2) establishment and maintenance of a national system of 

aids to navigation; (3) establishment and surveillance of civil air 

regulations to ensure safety in aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations governing the physical fitness of airmen 

as well as the administration of an aviation medical research program; (5) administration of the acquisition, and research and development programs; (6) headquarters, administration and other staff 

offices; and (7) development, printing, and distribution of aeronautical charts used by the flying public. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $9,718,000,000 for FAA operations, 

which is the same as the budget request and $64,605,000 above the 

fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

A comparison of the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, the budget request, and the Committee recommendation by budget activity is as 

follows: 

FY 2012 

enacted 

FY 2013 

request 

FY 2013 recommendation 

Air traffic organization ............................................................ $7,442,738,000 $7,513,850,000 $7,513,850,000 

Aviation safety ......................................................................... 1,252,991,000 1,255,000,000 1,255,000,000 

Commercial space transportation ........................................... 16,271,000 16,700,000 16,700,000 

Finance and management ....................................................... 582,117,000 573,591,000 573,591,000 

NextGen and operations planning ........................................... 60,134,000 60,064,000 60,064,000 

Staff offices ............................................................................. 299,144,000 298,795,000 298,795,000 

Total ............................................................................ 9,653,395,000 9,718,000,000 9,718,000,000 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

Justification of general provisions.—The Committee continues its 

direction to provide a justification for each general provision proposed in the FAA budget and therefore expects the fiscal year 2014 

budget to include adequate information on each proposed general 

provision. 

TRUST FUND SHARE OF FAA BUDGET

The bill derives $4,682,500,000 of the total operations appropriation from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. The balance of the 

appropriation, $5,035,500,000, will be drawn from the general fund 

of the Treasury. 

AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION

The bill provides $7,513,850,000 for air traffic services, which is the same as the budget request and $71,112,000 above the fiscal 

year 2012 enacted level. 

Organizational Structure.—In September 2011, the Committee 

approved FAA’s reprogramming request to implement organizational changes as part of the ‘‘Foundation for Success’’ initiative. 

The reorganization was intended to better execute the Next Generation of Air Traffic Control program (NextGen) and allow the 

Agency to operate in a more effective and efficient manner. 

Since the inception of the Air Traffic Organization in 2003, there 

have been several reorganizations intended to streamline operations, improve performance, and produce cost savings and efficiencies. Past efforts have met with limited success in controlling 

operating costs and executing major acquisitions. The Committee 

recognizes that it will take time for the most recent reorganization 

to mature and have the desired impacts. This reorganization will 

be hollow unless FAA builds the necessary expertise and strengthens program and contract management to manage NextGen. The 

Committee needs assurances that the Foundation for Success initiative will achieve the desired outcomes in managing major acquisitions and cost savings. The Committee requests that 180 days 

after enactment of this bill, the FAA provide the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations with a report on progress to-date 

and to what extent goals for the reorganization are being met. 

This is a longstanding issue that directly affects FAA’s ability to 

provide effective and proactive oversight of the aviation industry. 

Section 606 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires FAA to implement, in as cost-effective manner possible, an 

improved aviation safety inspector model by October 1, 2012. The 

Committee fully expects FAA to comply with these requirements, 

and requests that results of the staffing model also be provided to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations at the same 

time it is provided to the appropriate authorizing Committees. 

Air Traffic Controller Training.—A key issue moving forward will 

be ensuring that FAA has a sufficient, well-trained controller workforce. Currently, FAA has about 15,200 controllers onboard—25% 

of whom are controllers in training. FAA is planning to hire as 

many as 980 new controllers in FY 2012 and another 1,200 in FY 

2013 but may revisit the matter given the decline in traffic from 

peak levels in 2000. A recent report by the DOT Office of Inspector 

General on staffing and training issues at FAA’s most critical faciliVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

ties found an alarmingly high attrition rate for new controllers. 

One reason for this high attrition is inadequate training resources 

available to these facilities. FAA’s Air Traffic Control Optimum 

Training Solution Program is a key vehicle for delivering controller 

training. This program, however, has not met expectations for 

training new and existing controllers or for transforming the paradigm for training. It appears that problems are directly traceable 

to poor FAA planning and the Agency’s inability to establish firm 

requirements. Moreover, FAA has made downward adjustments in 

contract funding over the last 2 years and instructed its contractor 

in April to reduce support for various training efforts. It is becoming increasingly clear that FAA needs to rethink its overall approach to controller training. 

These problems come at a time when the number of fully certified controllers who are eligible to retire is increasing, and the 

Committee is concerned that FAA does not have an effective or executable plan for training the next generation of air traffic controllers. The Committee will continue to closely watch this issue, and 

requests that FAA forward to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations the studies called for in Section 609 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 regarding the adequacy of 

FAA’s air traffic controller training programs. 

Contract tower program.—The Committee recommendation includes $140,350,000 for the contract tower program, including 

$10,350,000 to continue the contract tower cost-sharing program. 

The Committee includes language that limits contributions in the 

contract tower cost share program to 20 percent of total costs. 

The Committee is concerned that the current effort by FAA to 

update cost-benefit information may not fully take into account the 

broad array of benefits the program provides to individual communities, including enhanced safety, cost savings, and economic development. The Committee notes that FAA’s updated cost-benefit calculations could reduce federal funding obligations and shift significant costs to local communities that have little if any ability to absorb additional costs. The Committee directs, prior to releasing or 

acting upon updated cost-benefit data, the FAA to seek input from 

affected local airports. The FAA should also provide a report to the 

Committees on Appropriations on the rationale for the cost-benefit 

changes, and the economic impact to affected airports prior to acting on any updated calculations. 

Aeronautical Navigation Products.—The Committee is concerned 

that Aeronautical Navigation Products (AeroNav) removed publicly 

available aeronautical data from its website without notice and is 

implementing a per-subscriber user fee for this information. Further, AeroNav’s product availability has been sharply reduced from 

seventeen days to twenty-four hours in advance of the effective 

date of the chart. This change appears to be in conflict with the 

FAA mission of providing timely and accurate information for pilots 

in the interest of safe and efficient navigation. The Committee directs the FAA to develop a fair and equitable fee structure for its 

AeroNav products that takes into consideration input from industry stakeholders and restores the 17-day availability of digital content. The Committee directs the FAA to report on it plans to adhere to this directive no later than March 1, 2013. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

AVIATION SAFETY

The Committee provides $1,255,000,000 for aviation safety, 

which is $2,009,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, and 

equal to the budget request. 

The Committee continues its direction requiring the Secretary to 

provide annual reports regarding the use of the funds provided, including, but not limited to, the total full-time equivalent staff years 

in the offices of aircraft certification and flight standards, total employees, vacancies, and positions under active recruitment. 

Aircraft Certification Service.—The Committee provides no less 

than the full budget request of $209,969,000 for the FAA’s Aircraft 

Certification Service. The Committee remains concerned that 

delays in FAA certification of new aircraft and related technologies 

could negatively affect aviation safety, as well as the economic 

health and competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers. Accordingly, the 

Committee reiterates its interest in FAA’s progress on certification 

reforms, as these critical activities are of utmost importance to 

aviation safety. 

Inspector Staffing.—The Committee continues to place a high priority on FAA’s critical safety workforces and funds its inspector 

workforce at the requested level. FAA is making progress in advancing risk-based oversight systems for its 4,300 safety inspectors. 

FAA’s inspector workload is driven by a number of factors, including complexity of air carrier operations and industry use of foreign 

and domestic aircraft repair stations. However, we are concerned 

about FAA’s lack of progress in using a reliable inspector staffing 

model. After several years of development, it is troubling that FAA 

is still not using a useful model to determine the appropriate number of safety inspectors needed or where they should be located to 

address the most pressing safety risks. 

Human Intervention Motivation Study and the Flight Attendant 

Drug and Alcohol Program.—The Committee recognizes the effectiveness of the Human Intervention Motivation Study (HIMS) and 

the Flight Attendant Drug and Alcohol Program (FADAP) in mitigating drug and alcohol abuse through a peer identification and 

intervention program. The Committee recommendation includes 

$2,103,000 to continue these programs through fiscal year 2015. 

The Committee is concerned with the length of time the FAA is 

taking to process manufacturers’ petitions to be included on the list 

of approved Portable Oxygen Concentrators (POCs) under the Special Federal Aviation Regulation 106 (SFAR 106). SFAR 106 permits passengers to carry on and use certain POCs on board aircraft 

if the devices are determined to be acceptable by established safety 

standards and aircraft operators ensure certain safety conditions 

are met. Delays in the current process threaten to dissuade the investment of manufacturing companies in the United States in the 

development of innovative new technologies. The Committee urges 

the FAA to follow through on its 2005 commitment to promulgate 

a performance-based standard for all POCs so specific manufacturers do not have to pursue formal rulemaking for each device model. 

In the interim, the Committee urges the FAA to establish a procedure by which SFAR 106 petitions are reviewed and processed not 

later than 6 months after the initial submission. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

The Committee recommends $16,700,000 for the office of commercial space transportation, which is equal to the budget request 

and $429,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

The Office of Commercial Space Transportation protects public 

safety through regulatory oversight of the rapidly growing U.S. 

commercial space transportation industry. The FAA also has a 

statutory mandate to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial 

space transportation. The commercial space transportation industry is nearly certain to increase its activities providing orbital and 

suborbital services to serve commercial, scientific, and government 

purposes. Of particular importance are orbital flights to support 

the operation of the International Space Station. This increase in 

commercial space activity will require the FAA to provide a significantly greater number of permits and licenses. The Committee 

wishes to ensure that the FAA has the ability to provide these permits and licenses effectively and efficiently so that the U.S. can 

emerge as the world leader in space transport. The Committee will 

encourage a reprogramming of funds to the Office of Commercial 

Space Transportation above the levels provided, if necessary to 

keep pace with this growing industry. 

FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $573,591,000 for finance and management activities, which is equal to the budget request and 

$8,526,000 below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

Workforce Diversity Report.—In 2011, the Administration issued 

Executive Order 13583 requiring all Federal agencies to develop a 

plan for recruiting, hiring, promoting, and retaining a diverse 

workforce. The Committee reiterates its direction that the FAA report data and information on the agency’s recruitment outreach 

and hiring efforts in minority communities. The Committee expects 

the report to include a year-to-year comparison of hiring statistics 

for underrepresented populations as well as a description of the 

strategies the agency utilizes to recruit a more diverse workforce. 

The FAA is directed to provide its letter report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2013. 

NEXTGEN AND OPERATIONS PLANNING

The Committee recommends $60,064,000 for NextGen and Oper- ations Planning, which is equal to the budget request and $70,000 

below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

BILL LANGUAGE

Second Career Training Program.—The bill retains language prohibiting the use of funds for the second career training program. 

This prohibition has been in annual appropriations Acts for many 

years and is included in the President’s budget request. 

Aviation User Fees.—The bill includes a limitation carried for 

several years prohibiting funds from being used to finalize or implement any new unauthorized user fees. 

Aeronautical Charting and Cartography.—The bill maintains the 

provision prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to conduct 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C) activities through 

the working capital fund (WCF). 

Credits.—This bill includes language allowing funds received 

from specified public, private, and foreign sources for expenses incurred to be credited to the appropriation. 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $2,730,731,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 2,850,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,749,596,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +18,865,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥100,404,000 

The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account is the principal 

means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway 

facilities. The appropriation also finances major capital investments required by other agency programs, experimental research 

and development facilities, and other improvements to enhance the 

safety and capacity of the airspace system. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,749,596,000, 

for the FAA’s facilities and equipment program, an increase of 

$18,865,000 above the level provided in fiscal year 2012 and 

$100,404,000 below the budget request. The bill provides that, of 

the total amount recommended, $2,269,596,000 is available for obligation until September 30, 2015, and $480,000,000 (the amount for 

personnel and related expenses) is available until September 30, 

2013. These obligation availabilities are consistent with past appropriations Acts. 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

Fiscal year Committee 

recommendation 2012 enacted 2013 request 

Activity 1—Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation: 

Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping ....................... $29,000,000 $33,100,000 $33,100,000 

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

William J. Hughes Technical Center Facilities ................................. 14,000,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Infrastructure Sustainment .... 7,500,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 

Data Communications for Trajectory Based Operations (NGATS) .... 143,000,000 142,630,000 142,630,000 

Next Generation Transportation System Technology Demonstration 15,000,000 24,600,000 24,600,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Systems Development .... 85,000,000 61,000,000 55,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Trajectory Based Operations ............................................................................................ 7,000,000 16,500,000 16,500,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Reduce Weather Impact 15,600,000 16,600,000 16,600,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—High Density/Arrivals/Departures ........................................................................................ 12,000,000 11,000,000 11,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Collaborative ATM .......... 24,000,000 24,200,000 24,200,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Flexible Terminals and 

Airports ......................................................................................... 33,300,000 30,500,000 30,500,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—System Network Facilities ................................................................................................ 5,000,000 11,000,000 11,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Future Facilities ............. 15,000,000 95,000,000 36,415,000 

Performance Based Navigation/RNAV/RNP ....................................... 29,200,000 36,200,000 41,200,000 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year Committee 

recommendation 2012 enacted 2013 request 

Total Activity 1 ................................................................ 435,600,000 522,830,000 463,245,000 

Activity 2—Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment: 

a. En Route Programs: 

En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) ................................... 155,000,000 144,000,000 144,000,000 

En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM)—Post Release 3 ....... ........................ 10,000,000 10,000,000 

En Route Communications Gateway (ECG) ...................................... 2,000,000 3,100,000 3,100,000 

Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD)—Provide ....................... 2,800,000 3,300,000 3,300,000 

Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC)—Relocation ............................................................................................... 3,600,000 ........................ ........................

ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements ........................ 41,000,000 46,000,000 40,000,000 

Air Traffic Management (ATM) ......................................................... 7,500,000 21,700,000 21,700,000 

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

Air Traffic Control En Route Radar Facilities Improvements ........... 5,800,000 5,900,000 5,900,000 

Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS) ................................... 1,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 

Oceanic Automation System ............................................................. 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/Ground Communications 

System (NEXCOM) ......................................................................... 45,150,000 33,650,000 33,650,000 

System-Wide Information Management ............................................ 66,350,000 57,200,000 57,200,000 

ADS—B NAS Wide Implementation .................................................. 285,100,000 271,600,000 271,600,000 

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

Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) ............................................. 2,500,000 500,000 500,000 

Collaborative Air Traffic Management Technologies—WP2 ............. 41,500,000 34,420,000 34,420,000 

Colorado ADS-B/WAM Cost Share ..................................................... 3,800,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 

Automated Terminal Information System (ATIS) .............................. 1,000,000 ........................ ........................

Tactical Flow Time Based Flow Management .................................. 38,700,000 12,900,000 12,900,000 

Subtotal En Route Programs ................................................... 712,600,000 668,670,000 662,670,000 

b. Terminal Programs: 

Airport Surface Detection Equipment—Model X (ASDE–X) ............. 2,200,000 7,400,000 7,400,000 

Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)—Provide ........................ 7,700,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) 

(TAMR Phase 1) ............................................................................ 25,000,000 34,500,000 34,500,000 

Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program (TAMR 

Phase 3) ....................................................................................... 108,750,000 153,000,000 153,000,000 

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

Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities—Replace ............................. 51,600,000 64,900,000 64,900,000 

ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) Facilities—Improve ............................................................................................. 52,000,000 25,200,000 25,200,000 

Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR) .................................... 8,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards Compliance .... 24,600,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 

Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR–9) ................................................. 6,000,000 6,400,000 6,400,000 

Terminal Digital Radar (ASR–11) ..................................................... 3,900,000 8,200,000 8,200,000 

Runway Status Lights ....................................................................... 29,800,000 35,250,000 35,250,000 

National Airspace System Voice Switch (NVS) ................................. 9,000,000 10,250,000 10,250,000 

Integrated Display System (IDS) ....................................................... 8,800,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 

Remote Monitoring and Logging System (RMLS) ............................. 4,200,000 4,700,000 4,700,000 

Mode S Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) ............................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

ASR–8 Service Life Extension Program ............................................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Surveillance Interface Modernization ................................................ ........................ 2,000,000 2,000,000

Tower Flight Data Manager (TFDM) .................................................. ........................ 37,600,000 35,600,000

Subtotal Terminal Programs .................................................... 348,050,000 432,600,000 430,600,000 

c. Flight Service Programs: 

Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) ................................. 2,500,000 ........................ ........................

Future Flight Service Program .......................................................... ........................ 8,000,000 8,000,000 

Flight Service Station (FSS) Modernization ...................................... 4,500,000 2,900,000 2,900,000 

Weather Camera Program ................................................................. 4,800,000 4,400,000 3,000,000 

Subtotal Flight Service Programs ............................................ 11,800,000 15,300,000 13,900,000 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year Committee recommendation 2012 enacted 2013 request 

d. Landing and Navigational Aids Program: 

VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range (VOR) with Distance Measuring 

Equipment (DME) ......................................................................... 5,000,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Instrument Landing System (ILS)—Establish .................................. 5,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 

Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) for GPS ........................... 95,000,000 96,000,000 92,000,000 

Runway Visual Range (RVR) ............................................................ 5,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Approach Lighting System Improvement Program (ALSIP) .............. 5,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) ............................................. 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Visual NAVAIDS—Establish/Expand ................................................. 3,400,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 

Instrument Flight Procedures Automation (IFPA) ............................. 2,200,000 7,100,000 7,100,000 

Navigation and Landing Aids—Service Life Extension Program 

(SLEP) ........................................................................................... 7,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 

VASI Replacement—Replace with Precision Approach Path Indicator ............................................................................................. 8,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000

GPS Civil Requirements .................................................................... 19,000,000 40,000,000 15,000,000 

Runway Safety Areas—Navigational Mitigation .............................. 25,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 

Subtotal Landing and Navigational Aids Programs ................ 184,600,000 210,100,000 181,100,000 

e. Other ATC Facilities Programs: 

Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring ............................. ,400,000 6,600,000 6,600,000 

Unstaffed Infrastructure Sustainment .............................................. 18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 

Aircraft Related Equipment Program ............................................... 11,700,000 10,100,000 10,100,000 

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

Alaskan Satellite Telecommunications Infrastructure (ASTI) ........... 15,500,000 6,800,000 6,800,000 

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

Electrical Power Systems—Sustain/Support .................................... 77,581,000 85,000,000 77,581,000 

Aircraft Fleet Modernization .............................................................. 9,000,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 

FAA Employee Housing and Life Safety Shelter System Service ...... 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Subtotal Other ATC Facilities Programs .................................. 149,681,000 141,100,000 133,681,000 

Total Activity 2 ................................................................ 1,406,731,000 1,467,770,000 1,421,951,000 

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

a. Support Equipment: 

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

Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS) ........................................... 30,100,000 15,800,000 15,800,000 

Logistics Support Systems and Facilities (LSSF) ............................. 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 

National Air Space (NAS) Recovery Communications (RCOM) ......... 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 

Facility Security Risk Management .................................................. 16,000,000 14,200,000 14,200,000 

Information Security .......................................................................... 15,200,000 14,000,000 14,000,000 

System Approach for Safety Oversight (SASO) ................................. 23,600,000 23,000,000 23,000,000 

Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment (ASKME) ...... 17,200,000 12,800,000 12,800,000 

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

Aerospace Medical Equipment Needs (AMEN) .................................. 10,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) ............. ........................ 15,000,000 15,000,000 

National Test Equipment Program ................................................... ........................ 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Mobile Assets Management Program ............................................... ........................ 1,700,000 1,700,000 

Aerospace Medicine Safety Information Systems (AMSIS) ............... ........................ 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Subtotal Support Equipment ................................................... 155,100,000 147,500,000 147,500,000 

b. Training, Equipment and Facilities: 

Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization ............................ 16,500,000 12,500,000 12,500,000 

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

Subtotal Training, Equipment and Facilities .......................... 18,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000 

Total Activity 3 ................................................................ 173,100,000 161,500,000 161,500,000 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year Committee 

recommendation 2012 enacted 2013 request 

Activity 4—Facilities and Equipment Mission Support: 

a. System Support and Services: 

System Engineering and Development Support ............................... 32,900,000 35,000,000 35,000,000 

Program Support Leases ................................................................... 40,000,000 40,900,000 40,900,000 

Logistics Support Services (LSS) ...................................................... 11,700,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center Leases ..................................... 17,000,000 17,500,000 17,500,000 

Transition Engineering Support ........................................................ 13,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000 

Technical Support Services Contract (TSSC) .................................... 22,000,000 23,000,000 23,000,000 

Resource Tracking Program (RTP) .................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) .......... 78,000,000 70,000,000 75,000,000 

Aeronautical Information Management Program .............................. 20,200,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Permanent Change of Station (PCS) Moves ..................................... 1,500,000 ........................ ........................

Total Activity 4 ......................................................................... 240,300,000 217,900,000 222,900,000 

Activity 5—Personnel and Related Expenses: 

Personnel and Related Expenses ...................................................... 475,000,000 480,000,000 480,000,000 

Total All Activities .................................................................... 2,730,731,000 2,850,000,000 2,749,596,000 

ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

Next Generation Air Transportation System Transformational 

Programs.—The Committee recognizes FAA’s NextGen transformational programs are critical to its overall plans to change the 

way air traffic is managed. 

The DOT Office of Inspector General recently reported on the 

status of the transformational programs and highlighted that 

FAA’s approach to approving small segments of complex NextGen 

programs has some drawbacks. There is no question that segmenting programs can reduce risk to the Government, but such 

segmentation does not provide a crosswalk for how key programs 

align with FAA’s plans for delivering benefits. The IG report shows 

the extraordinarily complex interdependencies between programs 

and the essential roles FAA automation programs, like ERAM, play 

in executing NextGen. The Committee urges FAA to follow through 

on its commitment to address the IG report’s recommendations. 

The Committee is particularly interested in ensuring that FAA follows through on the IG’s recommendation to establish—and use— 

an integrated master schedule for managing NextGen investments. 

NextGen—Systems Development.—The Committee recommendation includes $55,000,000 for NextGen—systems development, 

which is $6,000,000 below the budget request and $30,000,000 

below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

NextGen Future Facilities.—The Committee recommends 

$36,415,000 for the NextGen Future Facilities initiative, which is 

$58,585,000 below the budget request and $21,415,000 above the 

fiscal year 2012 enacted level. These funds will be used to fund preconstruction activities related to the Liberty Integrated Control Facility. This Committee is aware that this is the first step in FAA’s 

long-term plan to realign and consolidate its air traffic facility network into large, integrated facilities that could fundamentally 

change the way FAA operates and manages the National Airspace 

System. However, this plan is only in its initial stages. The FAA 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

has provided limited details regarding how this new facility will 

improve productivity, reduce agency costs, and improve the flow of 

air traffic. The Committee looks forward to receiving a more detailed and well justified plan for this new facility in the coming 

months. The Committee also looks forward to receiving information 

on the long-term cost savings associated with the potential elimination of outdated, inefficient, and obsolete facilities. 

Performance-Based Navigation.—The Committee provides 

$41,200,000 for Performance Based Navigation/RNAV/RNP. This is 

a $5,000,000 increase above the budget request and $12,000,000 

above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The Committee has 

strongly supported the accelerated development of Performance 

Based Navigation (PBN) procedures and processes, and continues 

to have a strong interest in using PBN to provide substantial, nearterm NextGen benefits to users of the NAS. The Committee is encouraged by the enactment of Section 213 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (PL 112–95), which requires FAA to 

develop performance-based metrics and environmental streamlining procedures to further accelerate RNP and RNAV flight paths 

at a minimum of 70 commercial airports throughout the NAS, including through the use of third parties to support the development 

of procedures. 

The Committee directs the FAA to fully utilize the tools provided 

in Section 213, including the use of third parties and categorical 

exclusions, so that efficient RNP and RNAV procedures can be produced in sufficient quantities in order to meet the demand that exists within the NAS for these types of procedures. The Committee 

recommends $5,000,000 to continue the Third Party Procedure development program to utilize qualified third parties to design, deploy, and maintain public use RNP procedures at airports across 

the country where aircraft flying RNP procedures would achieve 

measureable benefit. 

The Committee also directs the FAA to provide a detailed status 

update on its progress in meeting Congressional mandates under 

Section 213, including the estimated fuel and carbon dioxide emissions savings from any new RNP or RNAV procedure designed or 

implemented in 2012, to the Committees on Appropriations, by 

March 1, 2013. This report should also address the use of third 

parties and identify the flight procedures developed, or in the process of being developed, by them. 

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

EN ROUTE PROGRAMS

En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM).—The Committee 

provides $154,000,000 for the en route modernization program 

(ERAM). This level is equal to the budget request and $1,000,000 

below the level provided in fiscal year 2012. ERAM is the FAA’s 

program to replace the FAA’s en route host computer system, its 

backup system, and other related display system and radar position processor infrastructure. 

ERAM is a foundational component of NextGen, and it is critical 

to meeting FAA’s goals for increasing airspace capacity and reducing flight delays. FAA originally planned to deploy ERAM at 20 of 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

its en-route facilities by the end of 2010. However, due to software 

problems at the first two key sites, Salt Lake City and Seattle, 

FAA has been forced to delay original deployment estimates by 

nearly four years. The program has also seen cost overruns of $330 

million in prior years. 

FAA has taken a number of steps to improve the predictability 

of the schedule and costs of ERAM, and the ERAM system is now 

in use on a limited basis at nine locations. Nevertheless, the cost 

and timeframes for completing ERAM remain unclear. There are 

important lessons learned from ERAM that FAA needs to address 

to better manage its NextGen portfolio and reduce risks when deploying software intensive systems. These include better expectation setting for the controller workforce, addressing shortcomings 

in testing at the FAA Technical Center, bolstering Government Acceptance, and effectively using contract incentives for both development and implementation. The Committee will continue to monitor 

the program closely and looks forward to the final report from the 

DOT Inspector General on ERAM, which was requested by this 

Committee in fiscal year 2011. 

ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements.—The Committee recommendation includes $40,000,000 for ARTCC Building 

Improvements, which is $1,000,000 below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and $6,000,000 below the budget request. 

TERMINAL PROGRAMS

Terminal Automation Modernization/Eeplacement Program 

(TAMR Phase 3).—The Committee recommendation includes 

$153,000,000 for the terminal automation modernization and replacement program which is equal to the budget request and 

$44,250,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Phase 3 of the 

TAMR program is intended to modernize or replace terminal automation systems at TRACON facilities around the country. Last December, FAA’s Joint Resource Council (JRC) made a final investment decision to implement the STARS system at eleven ARTS 

IIIE facilities by 2017. Additionally, FAA is expected to make an 

investment decision later this year to upgrade or replace as many 

as 94 ARTS IIE systems. Replacing the automation systems at 

these terminal facilities is a major undertaking. FAA must determine how these facilities fit into the agency’s future facilities plan 

and effectively manage the cost and scheduling risks inherent in a 

program of this magnitude. The Committee directs the FAA to provide a plan by March 1, 2013 to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations which will include (1) costs and timelines for installing new systems; (2) how new automated controller tools will 

be introduced; and (3) how long the older systems will need to be 

sustained. 

Runway Status Lights.—The Committee provides $35,250,000 for 

the Runway Status Lights program, the same as the budget request and $5,450,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. This 

funding will continue to support the design, production, and installation of runway status lights (RWSL) at busy airports. Runway 

status lights are a fully automated system that gives pilots and vehicle operators a direct visual alert when it is unsafe to enter or 

cross a runway. The RWSL program responds to a safety recVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

ommendation from the National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) to ‘‘implement a safety system that provides direct warning 

capability to flight crews.’’ The Committee strongly supports 

RWSLs as an additional layer of safety to reduce runway incursions and encourages the FAA to review the suitability of deploying 

this critical safety enhancing technology at airports being equipped 

with the Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (ASSC) system. 

The Committee directs the FAA to provide a letter report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by April 15, 2013 

on the merits and costs associated with installing RWSLs at ASSCequipped airports. 

Tower Flight Data Manager.—The Committee provides 

$35,600,000 for the Tower Flight Data Manager (TFDM) program. 

This level is $2,000,000 below the budget request and $35,600,000 

above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAMS

Weather Camera Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for the Alaska Weather Camera program, which 

is $1,400,000 below the budget request and $1,800,000 below the 

fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

LANDING AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS

Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).—The Committee recommendation includes $92,000,000 for the wide area augmentation 

system program, which is $4,000,000 below the budget request and 

$3,000,000 below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

GPS Civil Requirements.—The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 for GPS Civil Requirements, which is 

$25,000,000 below the budget request and $4,000,000 below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. While the Committee recognizes the 

significance of FAA’s contribution to GPS, there is a significant unobligated balance at the Department of Defense. 

OTHER AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES PROGRAMS

Electrical Power Systems—Sustain/Support.—The Committee 

recommendation includes $77,581,000 for Electrical Power Systems, which is $7,419,000 below the budget request and the same 

as the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

MISSION SUPPORT

Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development (CAASD).— 

The Committee provides $75,000,000 for CAASD which is 

$5,000,000 above the budget request and $3,000,000 below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. As FAA continues to develop the solution sets for NextGen, there is an ongoing need for research and 

systems engineering support to supplement and validate the FAA’s 

internal capabilities. CAASD has been instrumental in providing 

technical and operational analytical support for a number of key 

initiatives including performance-based navigation, airspace design, 

NAS-wide information system security, and communications modernization. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $480,000,000 for personnel and related expenses which is an increase of $5,000,000 above the fiscal 

year 2012 enacted level and the same level as the budget request. 

This appropriation finances the personnel, travel and related expenses of the FAA’s facilities and equipment workforce. 

BILL LANGUAGE

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

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $167,556,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 180,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 175,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +7,444,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥5,000,000 

This appropriation provides funding for long-term research, engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic control system and to raise the level of aviation safety, as authorized 

by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation Act. The appropriation also finances the research, engineering 

and development needed to establish or modify federal air regulations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $175,000,000, an increase of 

$7,444,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and a decrease 

of $5,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes the following funding 

levels for Research, Engineering, and Development programs: 

Program 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2012 enacted 2013 request 

Fire Research and Safety .......................................................................... $7,158,000 $7,667,000 $7,667,000 

Propulsion and Fuel Systems .................................................................... 2,300,000 2,882,000 2,882,000 

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety ....................................................... 2,534,000 2,569,000 2,569,000 

Aircraft Icing—Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety .................... 5,404,000 6,644,000 6,644,000 

Continued Airworthiness ............................................................................ 11,600,000 13,202,000 12,103,000 

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research ................................... 1,147,000 1,691,000 1,691,000 

Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors .................... 6,162,000 5,416,000 5,416,000 

System Safety Management ...................................................................... 10,027,000 11,345,000 10,641,000 

Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors .......................... 10,364,000 10,014,000 10,014,000 

Aeromedical Research ................................................................................ 11,000,000 9,895,000 9,895,000 

Weather Program ....................................................................................... 16,043,000 15,539,000 15,539,000 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research ...................................................... 3,504,000 5,901,000 7,000,000 

NextGen—Alternative Fuels for General Aviation ..................................... 2,071,000 1,995,000 1,995,000 

Joint Planning and Development Office .................................................... 5,000,000 12,000,000 7,000,000 

NextGen—Wake Turbulence ....................................................................... 10,674,000 10,350,000 10,350,000 

NextGen—Air Ground Integration Human Factors .................................... 7,000,000 10,172,000 10,172,000 

NextGen—Self Separation Human Factors ............................................... 3,500,000 7,796,000 3,500,000 

NextGen—Weather Technology in the Cockpit .......................................... 8,000,000 4,826,000 4,826,000 

Environment and Energy ............................................................................ 15,074,000 14,776,000 14,776,000 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

Program 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2012 enacted 2013 request 

NextGen—Environmental Research—Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, and 

Metrics ................................................................................................... 23,500,000 19,861,000 24,861,000 

System Planning and Resource Management ........................................... 1,717,000 1,757,000 1,757,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility ........................... 3,777,000 3,702,000 3,702,000 

Total .................................................................................................. 167,556,000 180,000,000 175,000,000 

NextGen—Alternative Fuels for General Aviation.—The Committee provides $1,995,000 for alternative fuels research for general aviation, which is the same as the budget request and $76,000 

below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Among other research activities, these funds will be used to complete initial studies on the 

use of high aromatic additives for octane enhancement and on the 

assessment criteria for the use of bio-mass derived fuels. The Committee understands that the Unleaded Avgas Transition Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee recently issued recommendations to ensure 

the development of and transition to an unleaded avgas with the 

least impact upon the existing fleet of general aviation piston engine aircraft. The Committee looks forward to the FAA’s response, 

including agency plans to implement the recommendations and devote the resources required to transition in a way that effectively 

balances environmental improvement with aviation safety, technical challenges, and economic impact. 

NextGen Environmental Research—Aircraft Technologies, Fuels 

and Metrics.—The Committee provides $24,861,000 for the FAA’s 

NextGen environmental research aircraft technologies, fuels and 

metrics program, which is $5,000,000 above the budget request and 

$1,361,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The FAA’s continuous, lower energy, emissions, and noise program (CLEEN) has 

supported a number of research initiatives that will help advance 

the development of more efficient engines, airframes and alternative fuels. The Committee supports the FAA’s efforts to research, 

develop, and test these technologies, given that fuel costs continue 

to consume the largest portion of airline operating budgets and 

contribute to higher airfares for the traveling public. The increase 

above the budget request is provided to support additional research 

and testing of technologies and alternative fuels that offer the 

greatest potential for improving overall fuel efficiency and reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO).—The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the JPDO, a decrease of 

$5,000,000 below the budget request and a $2,000,000 increase, or 

40 percent, above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The JPDO was 

established to develop a plan for NextGen in the 2025 timeframe 

and to coordinate Federal research to modernize the Nation’s air 

transport system. Regardless of various FAA reorganizations, FAA 

needs to establish a clearly defined role for the JPDO and set expectations for how it will leverage research conducted at other Federal agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Homeland Security. The Committee 

directs the FAA to provide the Committee with a quarterly report 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

on its progress in coordinating research with other agencies and 

leveraging federal dollars to advance the goals of NextGen. 

Rescission.—The Committee recommendation includes a rescission of $26,183,998, as requested by the President. 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of 

contract authorization 

Limitation 

on obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................................................. $3,435,000,000 $3,350,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ............................................................................... 3,400,000,000 2,424,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ........................................................................................... 3,400,000,000 3,350,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................................... ¥35,000,000 – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ...................................................................... – – – 926,000,000 

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

planning, the military airport program, reliever airports, airport 

program administration, and other authorized activities. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The bill includes a limitation on obligations of $3,350,000,000 for fiscal year 2013, which is $926,000,000 above the budget request 

and the same as the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

ADMINISTRATION AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS

Airport Administrative Expenses.—Within the overall obligation 

limitation, the bill includes $105,000,000 for the administration of 

the airports program by the FAA. This funding level is equal to the 

budget request and $2,000,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted 

level. The increase is provided to enhance investigations of airport 

revenue diversion. 

Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP).—The recommendation includes $15,000,000 which is the same level as the 

budget request and the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The ACRP 

was established through Section 712 of the Vision 100—Century of 

Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108–176) to identify shared 

problem areas facing airports that can be solved through applied 

research but are not adequately addressed by existing Federal research programs. 

Airport Technology Research.—The recommendation includes a 

minimum of $29,300,000 for the FAA’s airport technology research 

program which is equal to the budget request and $50,000,000 

above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The funds provided for 

this program are utilized to conduct research in the areas of airport 

pavement; airport marking and lighting; airport rescue and fireVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

fighting; airport planning and design; wildlife hazard mitigation; 

and visual guidance. 

Airport Revenue Diversion.—The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 requires that revenue generated at a public-use 

airport is used for the airport’s capital and operating expenses—except in a small number of cases in which grandfathered airports already had a revenue sharing agreement. After a series of revenue 

diversions were uncovered at airports across the country, the FAA 

Authorization of 1994 reiterated that using airport revenue for unauthorized purposes is illegal. In addition to violating U.S. law, 

revenue diversion undermines the sustainability of airports, which 

are critical to U.S. economic competitiveness and the international 

movement of passengers and goods. 

The Committee is concerned about the potential ongoing revenue 

diversion at a number of airports across the country. The Committee notes that airport revenues are intended, by law, to be used 

for airport purposes and that the use of airport revenues for nonairport purposes is unlawful, except in cases where the airport’s 

use of airport revenue for non-airport purposes was ‘‘grandfathered 

in’’ by statute. The Committee urges FAA to review its oversight 

of airport revenue diversion, and determine if additional oversight 

is needed. If appropriate, the FAA should consider reprogramming 

funds to enhance revenue diversion enforcement within the Office 

of the Associate Administrator for Airports. Further, the Committee directs the FAA to require corrective action plan from an 

airport within sixty days of any finding of revenue diversion. 

BILL LANGUAGE

Runway Incursion Prevention Systems and Devices.—Consistent 

with prior year appropriations Acts, the bill allows funds under 

this limitation to be used for airports to procure and install runway 

incursion prevention systems and devices. 

Local Match.—As a result of H.R. 658, the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–95), the local match requirement for allowable costs at most small airports doubled from 

5 percent to 10 percent. The Committee is concerned that this new 

requirement changed the rules mid-stream for small airports that 

had started, but not completed, safety and capacity projects before 

the FAA reauthorization bill was enacted into law. The Committee 

has included language that would allow small airports to continue 

to receive a 95 percent federal share for unfinished phased projects 

that were underway before the FAA bill was enacted into law on 

February 14, 2012. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Section 110. The Committee retains a provision limiting the 

number of technical workyears at the Center for Advanced Aviation 

Systems Development to 600 in fiscal year 2011. 

Section 111. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting FAA 

from requiring airport sponsors to provide the agency ‘without cost’ 

building construction, maintenance, utilities and expenses, or space 

in sponsor-owned buildings, except in the case of certain specified 

exceptions. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

Section 112. The Committee continues a provision allowing reimbursement for fees collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 45303. 

Section 113. The Committee retains a provision allowing reimbursement of funds for providing technical assistance to foreign 

aviation authorities to be credited to the operations account. 

Section 114. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting funds 

limited in this Act for the Airport Improvement Program to be provided to an airport that refuses a request from the Secretary of 

Transportation to use public space at the airport for the purpose 

of conducting outreach on air passenger rights. 

Section 115. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting the 

FAA from paying Sunday premium pay except in those cases where 

the individual actually worked on a Sunday. 

Section 116. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting FAA 

from using funds to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates 

through a government-issued credit card. 

Section 117. The Committee includes a provision that allows airports experiencing the required level of boardings through charter 

and scheduled air service to be eligible for funds under 49 U.S.C. 

47114(c). 

Section 118. The Committee includes a provision that requires 

approval from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration of 

the Department of Transportation for retention bonuses for any 

FAA employee. 

Section 119. The Committee includes a provision that limits the 

cost-share required under the contract tower program to 20 percent. 

Section 119A. The Committee includes a provision that requires 

the Secretary to block the display of an owner or operator’s aircraft 

registration number in the Aircraft Situational Display to Industry 

program, upon the request of an owner or operator. 

Section 119B. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting 

funds to change weight restrictions or prior permission rules at 

Teterboro Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides financial 

assistance to the states to construct and improve roads and highways. It also provides technical assistance to other agencies and organizations involved in road building activities. Title 23 of the 

United States Code and other supporting statutes provide authority for the activities of the FHWA. Funding is provided by contract 

authority, while program levels are established by annual limitations on obligations, as set forth in appropriations Acts. 

AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

The most recent multi-year surface transportation authorization 

Act, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), expired on September 30, 2009. Since that time, the Congress has enacted several 

short-term extensions that continued to provide contract authority 

for the FHWA and other surface transportation agencies under the 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

same structure as SAFETEA–LU. However, the current 

SAFETEA–LU extension ends June 30, 2012. 

It is unclear what authorization law (or laws) will be effective 

during fiscal year 2013. Conferees from the House and Senate currently are working on surface transportation authorization legislation. The Committee is in the unenviable position of recommending 

appropriations for a program without authorization. 

The Committee therefore provides only minimal bill language 

that sets the overall FHWA obligation limitation for fiscal year 

2013, contingent upon authorization. It is the Committee’s intention that appropriations made by this bill will be wholly contingent 

on a reauthorization of the highway program and will be distributed only in accordance with the new authorization law. 

THE PRESIDENT’S 2013 BUDGET REQUEST

The President’s budget request once again pretends as though 

Congress has enacted the Administration’s transportation authorization proposal into law, even though the Administration has 

never publicly released its proposal or transmitted it to Congress, 

as has been customary since the Eisenhower Administration. As 

such, the FHWA budget request is a fictional document, on which 

numerous staff hours and government resources were expended. In 

short, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars. 

The budget request and accompanying budget justifications are 

the primary means by which Congress learns about agency budgetary priorities. This year and last year, FHWA’s budget justifications were almost useless. Such fiction is of no help to the Committee in assessing program needs and priorities for fiscal year 

2013. With the exception of the section on FHWA’s administrative 

expenses, the budget justification contains no pertinent information 

or recommendations the Committee may use to make meaningful 

decisions. The Committee, however, notes with appreciation that 

the FHWA budget staff is very helpful, capable, and responsive to 

the Committee. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total program level of 

$39,882,583,000 for the activities of the FHWA in fiscal year 2013, 

contingent upon reauthorization. This amount is $1,662,000,000 

below fiscal year 2012 (due to the lack of disaster funds) and 

$2,686,417,000 below the budget request. Included within the recommended amount is an obligation limitation of $39,143,583,000 

and $739,000,000 in contract authority that is exempt from the obligation limitation. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations, compared with the fiscal year 2012 enacted levels and the 

fiscal year 2013 budget request for FHWA: 

(In thousands of dollars) 

Program 

Fiscal year Recommended in the 

bill 2012 enacted 2013 request * 

Federal-aid highways (obligation limitation) .......................... $39,143,583 $41,830,000 $39,143,583 

Exempt contract authority ....................................................... 739,000 739,000 739,000 

Liquidation of contract authorization ...................................... 39,882,583 42,569,000 39,882,583 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

(In thousands of dollars) 

Program 

Fiscal year Recommended in the bill 2012 enacted 2013 request * 

Emergency relief (disaster appropriation) ............................... 1,662,000 – – – – – – 

Total program level ................................................ 41,544,583 42,569,000 39,882,583 

* The budget request treats all highways spending as mandatory. The Committee, however, treats the requested amounts as though they 

are subject to the obligation limitation (except the contract authority traditionally exempted from the obligation limitation), as in past years. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $412,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 437,780,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 392,855,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥19,145,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥44,925,000 

The limitation on administrative expenses caps the amount, from 

within the limitation on obligations, that FHWA may spend on salaries and expenses necessary to conduct and administer the federal-aid highway program, highway-related research, and most 

other federal highway programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $392,855,000, which 

is $19,145,000 below fiscal year 2012, and $44,925,000 below the 

budget request. The recommended amount is equal to the most recent authorized level, which reflects a reduction in administrative 

expenses proportionate to the modest reduction experienced in the 

overall program in fiscal year 2012. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $39,143,583,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 41,830,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 39,143,583,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥2,686,417,000 

The federal-aid highways program is designed to aid in the development, operations and management of an intermodal transportation system that is economically efficient and environmentally 

sound, to provide the foundation for the nation to compete in the 

global economy, and to move people and goods safely. 

There are approximately four million miles of public roads in the 

United States and about 600,000 bridges. Currently, the federal 

government provides grants to states to assist in financing the construction and preservation of about 994,500 miles (24 percent) of 

these roads, which represents the National Highway System plus 

key feeder and collector routes. Highways eligible for federal aid 

carry about 85 percent of total U.S. highway traffic. 

Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain ownership of 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

and responsibility for the maintenance, repair and new construction of roads. State highway departments have the authority to initiate federal-aid projects, subject to FHWA approval of the plans, 

specifications, and cost estimates. The Federal government provides financial support, on a reimbursable basis, for construction 

and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary with 

the type of road. 

Under SAFETEA–LU, federal-aid highways funds have been 

made available to the states through a mix of ‘‘apportioned programs,’’ which are distributed using a formula provided in law, and 

‘‘allocated programs,’’ which are distributed based on criteria set in 

law and which allow for some discretion on the part of the Secretary in selecting recipients. 

All programs included within the federal-aid highways program 

are financed from the highway trust fund and most are distributed 

via apportionments and allocations to states. The federal-aid highways program is funded by contract authority, and liquidating cash 

appropriations are subsequently provided to fund outlays resulting 

from obligations incurred under contract authority. 

The Committee sets, through the annual appropriations process, 

an overall limitation on the total contract authority that can be obligated under the federal-aid highways program in a given year. 

The Committee also provides direction and other guidance regarding some of the programs that operate under this overall limitation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations for the 

federal-aid highways program of $39,143,583,000, contingent upon 

authorization. This amount is the same as fiscal year 2012 and 

$2,686,417,000 below the budget request. 

Because the structure of the federal-aid highways program for 

fiscal year 2013 is unknown at this time due to lack of authorizing 

legislation, the Committee includes no detailed summaries of particular programs under SAFETEA–LU. 

Limitation on Transportation Research.—The Committee continues bill language limiting the amount the FHWA may spend on 

transportation research and technology contract programs. Within 

the overall obligation limitation for federal-aid highways, the Committee recommends an obligation limitation for transportation research of $429,800,000, which is equal to fiscal year 2012 and the 

budget request. 

Under SAFETEA–LU, the transportation research and technology contract programs include: surface transportation research, 

training and education, university transportation research, and intelligent transportation systems research. Funding for the Bureau 

of Transportation Statistics (BTS) also is included within this limitation, although the BTS will be housed within the Office of the 

Secretary. 

Because future reauthorization actions may change the structure 

of existing research programs, the Committee does not provide a 

detailed breakdown of transportation research program activities. 

Loan Fees.—The Committee continues bill language allowing the 

Secretary to charge and collect fees from the applicant for a direct 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

loan, guaranteed loan, or line of credit to cover the cost of the financial and legal analyses performed on behalf of the Department. 

These fees are not subject to the obligation limitation or the limitation on administrative expenses set for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation program under section 608 of 

title 23, United States Code. 

State Programs.—The Committee directs the Secretary to provide 

states with as much discretion as possible in administering their 

state surface transportation formula funds. State departments of 

transportation can best allocate resources to satisfy their states’ individual and unique surface transportation needs. 

Public-private Partnerships.—In instances where the Secretary 

exercises discretion in project selection, the Committee directs the 

Secretary to give strong consideration to infrastructure projects 

funded through public-private partnership investment. 

Corrosion.—The Committee notes corrosion detrimentally impacts surface transportation infrastructure and is an economic burden and safety hazard. The Committee directs the FHWA to report 

to the Committees on Appropriations within 180 days of enactment 

on the costs and benefits associated with developing a comprehensive corrosion analysis and mitigation tool to prevent, predict, and 

control corrosion-related problems in highway transportation. 

Geosynthetics.—The Committee directs the FHWA to continue assessing the use of geosynthetics in highway and civil infrastructure 

applications, especially potential cost savings and environmental 

benefits. The Committee also encourages FHWA to review and consider the recommendations in GAO’s upcoming report on 

geosynthetics and the associated life-cycle costs of incorporating innovative materials in pavements. 

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $39,882,583,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 42,569,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 39,882,583,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥2,686,417,000 

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $39,882,583,000, which is the same as fiscal year 2012 and 

$2,686,417,000 below the budget request. This is the amount required to pay the outstanding obligations of the highway program 

at levels provided in this Act and prior appropriations Acts. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Section 120. The Committee continues a provision that distributes obligation authority among federal-aid highways programs. 

Section 121. The Committee continues a provision that credits 

funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the 

federal-aid highways account. 

Section 122. The Committee continues a provision that provides 

requirements for any waiver of the Buy American Act. 

Section 123. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

tolling in Texas, with exceptions. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) was 

established within the Department of Transportation (DOT) by 

Congress through the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 

1999. FMCSA’s mission is to promote safe commercial motor vehicle operations and reduce truck and bus crashes. FMCSA works 

with federal, state, and local entities, the motor carrier industry, 

highway safety organizations, and the public to further its mission. 

FMCSA resources are used to prevent and mitigate commercial 

vehicle accidents through regulation, enforcement, stakeholder 

training, technological innovation, and improved information systems. FMCSA also is responsible for enforcing Federal motor carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations for all commercial 

vehicles entering the United States along its southern and northern borders. 

FMCSA’s current activities are authorized under an extension of 

SAFETEA–LU, which expires June 30, 2012. For purposes of determining authorized funding levels, the Committee assumes another 

extension of SAFETEA–LU through fiscal year 2013. The Committee’s recommendations for FMCSA are contingent upon reauthorization. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ..................... $247,724,000 ($247,724,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 . ................. 250,000,000 (250,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................ 244,144,000 (244,144,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .............. ¥3,580,000 (¥3,580,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ............ ¥5,856,000 (¥5,856,000) 

This limitation controls FMCSA spending on salaries, operating 

expenses, and research. It provides resources to support motor carrier safety program activities and to maintain the agency’s administrative infrastructure. This funding supports nationwide motor 

carrier safety and consumer enforcement efforts, including the 

Compliance, Safety, and Accountability Program, regulation and 

enforcement of household goods transport, and federal safety enforcement at the U.S. borders. These resources also fund regulatory 

development and implementation, information management, research and technology, grants to States and local partners, safety 

education and outreach, and the safety and consumer telephone 

hotline. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $247,724,000 in liquidating cash for 

motor carrier safety operations and programs. The Committee also 

recommends limiting obligations from the highway trust fund to 

$247,724,000 for motor carrier safety operations and programs in 

fiscal year 2013. These levels are $3,580,000 below fiscal year 2012 

and $5,856,000 below the budget request. They are the maximum 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

authorized levels, assuming current, annualized SAFETEA–LU levels, and they are contingent upon reauthorization. 

Within the amounts provided for operations and programs, the Committee recommends $1,000,000 for commercial motor vehicle 

operator’s grants, which provide commercial motor vehicle operators with critical safety training. This amount is the same as fiscal 

year 2012 and the budget request. It is the full authorized level, 

assuming current, annualized SAFETEA–LU levels. 

The Committee continues bill language making funds for the research and technology program available until September 30, 2015. 

The Committee also continues bill language prohibiting any funds 

relating to outreach and education from being transferred to another agency. 

Chameleon Carriers.—The Committee directs the FMCSA to use 

$5,000,000 of the funds provided for operations and programs to 

implement a risk-based monitoring of all motor carriers for chameleon carrier characteristics, as recommended in the recent GAO report, GAO–12–364, ‘‘New Applicant Reviews Should Expand to 

Identify Freight Carriers Evading Detection.’’ FMCSA estimates 

this amount is sufficient to complete the initial start-up of such a 

screening tool, including early evaluations, algorithm development, 

capability implementation, post-implementation evaluations, and 5 

FTE to support the effort. FMCSA anticipates it will take one year 

to implement the capability to screen all carriers using a risk-based 

approach, and the Committee directs such capability to be in place 

by the end of fiscal year 2013. 

A chameleon carrier is a motor carrier that was once put out-ofservice due to safety violations, but that ‘‘reincarnates’’ itself under 

a new corporate identity to resume business. FMCSA needs better 

ways to identify and put out-of-service permanently such carriers. 

The GAO report noted FMCSA currently monitors all household 

goods and passenger bus motor carriers for chameleon carrier 

traits, but such sectors represent only 2% of the motor carrier market. The vast majority of motor carriers are freight carriers. GAO 

and the DOT Inspector General found that FMCSA can expand its 

new-entrant audits to the freight sector, but only if it uses riskbased data to target its resources to the riskiest new entrants. 

GAO suggests such risk-based audits could be accomplished 

using as few as 2–3 FTE, in addition to the current 6 FTE, by 

using a data-based algorithm to correctly identify the riskiest carriers. The Committee fully supports this type of risk-based approach, as it makes the best use of taxpayer resources. The Committee also directs FMCSA, in implementing this risk-based approach over the next year, to determine the most cost-effective 

method of collecting and updating carrier data, including solutions 

available in the private sector. The Committee notes FMCSA’s ongoing efforts to consolidate its databases may further assist the effort to begin risk-based monitoring of all new entrant motor carriers. 

Compliance, Safety, and Accountability.—The Committee is concerned about FMCSA’s proposed new scoring system in the Compliance, Safety, and Accountability (CSA) program, which is the primary means by which FMCSA oversees motor carriers currently in 

operation. A wide range of industry groups are concerned that the 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

new CSA scores do not actually correlate to risk and may inaccurately portray carriers in a variety of ways. The Committee directs FMCSA to increase its outreach to industry to address these 

concerns before finalizing the CSA scoring system. The lack of correlation between a score and actual risk is a very serious concern 

and should be addressed with public participation. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of 

contract authorization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .......................................................................................... $307,000,000 ($307,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................................................... 330,000,000 (330,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................................................... 307,000,000 (307,000,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ................................................................................. – – – – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 .............................................................................. ¥23,000,000 (¥23,000,000) 

FMCSA’s motor carrier safety grants were authorized by the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) and continued by SAFETEA–LU and subsequent extensions of SAFETEA– 

LU. 

These grants are used to support compliance reviews in the 

states, identify and apprehend traffic violators, conduct roadside 

inspections, and conduct safety audits of new entrant carriers. Additionally, grants are provided to states for safety enforcement at 

the U.S. borders, improvement of state commercial driver’s license 

oversight activities, and improvements in linking states’ motor vehicle registration systems and carrier safety data. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $307,000,000 in liquidating cash for this program, as well as a $307,000,000 limitation on obligations, 

in fiscal year 2013. These levels are the same as fiscal year 2012 

and $23,000,000 below the budget request. They reflect the full authorized levels for each grant within this account, assuming the 

current, annualized SAFETEA–LU program levels. The Committee’s recommendations are contingent upon reauthorization. 

The Committee recommends the following obligation limitations 

for grants funded under this account: 

Motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) .............................................................. ($212,000,000) 

Commercial driver’s license improvements program ........................................................... (30,000,000) 

Border enforcement grants ................................................................................................... (32,000,000) 

Performance and registration information system management program ......................... (5,000,000) 

Commercial vehicle information systems and networks deployment .................................. (25,000,000) 

Safety data improvement grants ......................................................................................... (3,000,000) 

New Entrant Audits.—Of the funds made available for the Motor 

Carrier Safety Assistance Grants, the Committee recommends 

$29,000,000 for audits of new entrant motor carriers, which is the 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

same as fiscal year 2012, $3,000,000 below the budget request, and 

the full authorized level assuming extension of current law. 

FMCSA requires all new entrants to pass a safety audit within 

the first 18 months of operations in order to receive permanent 

DOT registration. With the expansion of such vetting to the freight 

sector over the next year, the Committee expects to see improvement in the agency’s ability to detect and shut down chameleon 

carriers. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Sec. 130. The Committee continues language subjecting the funds 

appropriated in this Act to the terms and conditions included in 

prior appropriations Acts regarding Mexico-domiciled motor carriers. 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

was established in March of 1970 to administer motor vehicle and 

highway safety programs. It was the successor agency to the National Highway Safety Bureau, which was housed in the Federal 

Highway Administration. 

NHTSA’s mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce 

economic costs due to road traffic crashes, through education, research, safety standards and enforcement activity. To accomplish 

these goals, NHTSA establishes and enforces safety performance 

standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, investigates safety defects in motor vehicles, and conducts research on 

driver behavior and traffic safety. 

NHTSA provides grants and technical assistance to state and 

local governments to enable them to conduct effective local highway 

safety programs. Together with state and local partners, NHTSA 

works to reduce the threat of drunk and impaired drivers and to 

promote use of safety belts, helmets, child safety seats, airbags, 

and other life-saving devices. 

NHTSA establishes and ensures compliance with fuel economy 

standards, investigates odometer fraud, establishes and enforces 

vehicle anti-theft regulations, and provides consumer information 

on a variety of motor vehicle safety topics. 

NHTSA’s current programs were authorized by the following 

laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.); (2) the Highway 

Safety Act (chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA) (Part C of subtitle VI 

of title 49, U.S.C.); (4) the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act; and (5) the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU). 

SAFETEA–LU expired on September 30, 2009. The Congress enacted many short-term extensions of SAFETEA–LU, with the latest 

extension ending June 30, 2012. In the absence of a long-term authorization bill for surface transportation programs, including highway safety programs, the Committee assumes the continuation of 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

the current program structure. The Committee’s recommendations 

with respect to funds provided from the Highway Trust Fund are 

contingent upon reauthorization. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $776,188,000, which is $23,786,000 

below fiscal year 2012 and $204,812,000 below the budget request. 

The decrease is attributable to the expiration of the Seat Belt Performance Grants, which were funded at $48,500,000 in fiscal year 

2012. The Committee’s recommendation maintains all other grants 

at current funding levels and increases operational resources by 

$24,714,000 in fiscal year 2013. The following table summarizes 

the Committee’s recommendations: 

2012 enacted 2013 request Committee 

recommendation 

Operations and research (general fund and highway trust fund) ..... $249,646,000 $338,000,000 $274,360,000 

Highway traffic safety grants (highway trust fund) ........................... 550,328,000 643,000,000 501,828,000 

Total ............................................................................................ 799,974,000 981,000,000 776,188,000 

The Committee recommends funding levels that provide NHTSA 

with sufficient resources to continue its critical work improving the 

safety of passenger travel on the nation’s highway system. The 

Committee commends NHTSA and its partners for the 3% decrease 

in highway fatalities in 2010, bringing highway fatalities to a new 

record low. The Committee encourages NHTSA and the network of 

researchers and public safety personnel to continue their work to 

enhance safety and reduce fatalities. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

(General fund) (Highway trust 

fund) Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ........................................................... $140,146,000 $109,500,000 $249,646,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ........................................................ – – – 338,000,000 338,000,000 

Recommended in the bill .................................................................... 152,000,000 122,360,000 274,360,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. 11,854,000 12,860,000 24,714,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ............................................... +152,000,000 ¥215,640,000 ¥63,640,000 

The operations and research appropriations support research, 

demonstrations, technical assistance, and national leadership for 

highway safety programs. Many of these programs are conducted 

in partnership with state and local governments, the private sector, 

universities, research units, and various safety associations and organizations. These programs address alcohol and drug countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law enforcement, 

emergency medical and trauma care systems, traffic records and licensing, traffic safety evaluations, motorcycle safety, pedestrian 

and bicycle safety, pupil transportation, distracted and drowsy 

driving, young and older driver safety programs, and development 

of improved accident investigation procedures. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $274,360,000, which is $24,714,000 

above fiscal year 2012 and $63,640,000 below the budget request. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

Of this total, $152,000,000 is from the General Fund for vehicle 

safety programs and $122,360,000 is from the Highway Trust Fund 

for behavioral highway safety operations and research. The Committee rejects the Administration’s request to fund the vehicle safety portion out of the highway trust fund, rather than the general 

fund. 

The Committee recognizes that NHTSA’s operational resources 

have been fairly flat for several years and that there are several 

areas that could use additional resources at this time. However, 

NHTSA’s budget request is full of new funding requests that cannot be accommodated. Therefore, the Committee provides specific 

instructions below as to which activities are approved to receive additional resources. 

Vehicle Safety.—The Committee directs NHTSA to spend additional funds provided in fiscal year 2013 on the following activities 

in these approximate amounts: • $5,000,000—New Car Assessment Program. • $7,000,000—Vehicle Electronics Systems Safety. The Committee provides an additional $5,000,000 for the New 

Car Assessment Program (NCAP), which is the primary means by 

which new vehicles are evaluated by NHTSA for safety performance. NCAP is responsible for the star safety ratings that inform 

consumers purchasing vehicles. The Committee provides funds to 

improve NCAP, so it once again covers 85% of the new vehicle market. 

The Committee provides an additional $7,000,000 for the Vehicle 

Electronic Systems Safety initiative. Electronic systems are becoming increasingly important in vehicle design and manufacturing. 

NHTSA has identified advanced electronic control systems as an 

emerging technology in need of greater study and understanding. 

The Committee provides resources to evaluate the safety of these 

critical new systems. 

Highway Safety.—The Committee directs NHTSA to spend the 

additional funds provided in fiscal year 2013 on the following activities in these approximate amounts: 

• $2,000,000—Impaired Driving Countermeasures. 

• $2,000,000—Occupant Protection Initiative. 

• $5,000,000—Highway Safety Research. 

• $3,000,000—Core Competency and Training Program. 

The Committee provides $2,000,000 in additional funding for development of Impaired Driving Countermeasures, particularly to 

support NHTSA’s role in the implementation of ignition interlock 

programs nationwide. 

The Committee provides $2,000,000 in additional funding for the 

Occupant Protection Initiative, particularly to support renewal of 

the Click-It-Or-Ticket campaign and to further improve effective 

use of seatbelts and child restraints. 

The Committee provides $5,000,000 in additional funding for the 

Highway Safety Research Program, which is a 67% increase above 

fiscal years 2011 and 2012. This program covers all research relating to unsafe behaviors that impact highway safety, including for 

example alcohol-impaired driving, drug-impaired driving, speeding, 

use of occupant protection devices, distracted driving, driving by 

older and younger persons, pedestrian behavior, and motorcycle 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

driving. The Committee notes NHTSA is in the best position to determine which particular research projects have the greatest potential to improve highway safety. The Committee provides an additional $3,000,000 to support 

NHTSA’s Core Competency and Training Program for highway 

safety professionals at the federal, state, and local levels. In past 

years, NHTSA provided this critical training to highway safety professionals by taking down its own operational resources, thereby diverting funds from needed research and countermeasure development. The Committee’s recommendation folds this training into the 

base for highway safety operations. 

National Driver Register.—The Committee recommends funding 

the National Driver Register (NDR) at the full authorized amount 

of $4,116,000, from within the highway safety operational funds. 

The NDR is a computerized database of information regarding drivers with revoked or suspended licenses and drivers convicted of serious traffic violations. The NDR allows state motor vehicle administrators to communicate effectively with other states to identify 

such drivers. 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation on contract authorization Limitation on 

obligation 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................................................. $550,328,000 ($550,328,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ............................................................................... 643,000,000 (643,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ........................................................................................... 501,828,000 (501,828,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................................... ¥48,500,000 (¥48,500,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ...................................................................... ¥141,172,000 (¥141,172,000) 

The highway traffic safety state grant programs currently authorized include: highway safety programs, occupant protection incentive grants, alcohol impaired driving countermeasures incentive 

grants, safety belt performance grants, state traffic safety information systems improvement grants, high visibility enforcement program, child safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants, 

and motorcyclist safety grants. 

These grant programs provide resources to states for highway 

safety programs that are data-driven and that meet states’ most 

pressing highway safety problems. They are a critical asset in reducing highway traffic fatalities and injuries. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $501,828,000 in liquidating cash 

from the Highway Trust Fund to pay outstanding obligations of the 

highway safety grant programs at the levels provided in this Act 

and prior appropriations Acts. The Committee also recommends 

limiting the obligations from the highway trust fund in fiscal year 

2013 for the highway traffic safety grants programs to 

$501,828,000. These levels are $48,500,000 below fiscal year 2012 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

and $141,172,000 below the budget request, and they are contingent upon reauthorization. 

The Committee’s recommendation maintains current funding for 

all grants, except the safety belt performance grant, which has 

been phased out by the Administration because it achieved its purpose of incentivizing states to enact primary seatbelt laws and is 

no longer needed. 

All other grants are funded at the highest possible level under 

the current authorization. Because reauthorization has not yet occurred, the Committee assumes the highway traffic safety grant 

programs now authorized will be reauthorized in fiscal year 2013 

at the same annualized levels. 

The Committee does not provide any funding for the Administration’s proposed new distracted driving prevention grants because 

they are not authorized. The Committee also declines the Administration’s request to combine the child safety and booster seat grant 

with the occupant protection incentive grant into a new ‘‘combined 

occupant protection incentive grant.’’ 

The Committee recommends the following funding allocations: 

Highway safety programs ..................................................................................................... ($235,000,000) 

Occupant protection incentive grants .................................................................................. (25,000,000) 

Safety belt performance grants ........................................................................................... – – – 

Distracted driving prevention grants ................................................................................... – – – 

State traffic safety information systems improvements ..................................................... (34,500,000) 

Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants .............................................. (139,000,000) 

Grant administration ............................................................................................................ (25,328,000) 

High visibility enforcement program .................................................................................... (29,000,000) 

Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants .............................................. (7,000,000) 

Motorcyclist safety ................................................................................................................ (7,000,000) 

Total ............................................................................................................................. (501,828,000) 

Below are descriptions of the grant programs for which the Committee recommends funding in fiscal year 2013. The descriptions 

are based on current law: 

Highway Safety Grants.—The state and community highway 

safety formula grant program, authorized by 23 U.S.C. 402, supports state highway safety programs designed to reduce traffic 

crashes and resulting deaths, injuries, and property damage. A 

state may use these grants only for highway safety purposes and 

at least 40 percent of these funds are to be expended by political 

subdivisions of the state. 

Occupant Protection Incentive Grants.—The occupant protection 

incentive grants, authorized by 23 U.S.C. 405, encourage states to 

adopt and implement programs to reduce deaths and injuries from 

riding unrestrained or improperly restrained in motor vehicles. 

State Traffic Safety Information Systems Improvements.—The 

state traffic safety information systems improvements program, authorized by 23 U.S.C. 408, provides incentive grants to encourage 

states to adopt and implement programs to improve the timeliness, 

accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of 

state data needed to identify priorities in national, state, and local 

highway and traffic safety programs. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

Alcohol-impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grants.— 

The alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grant program, authorized by 23 U.S.C. 410, encourages states to adopt and 

implement programs to reduce traffic safety problems resulting 

from individuals driving under the influence of alcohol. 

Grants Administration Expenses.—Section 2001(a)(11) of 

SAFETEA–LU authorizes funding salaries and operating expenses 

necessary to the administration of the grants programs. 

High Visibility Enforcement Program.—Section 2009 of 

SAFETEA–LU directs NHTSA to administer at least two high-visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns each year to achieve 

one or both of these objectives: (1) reduce alcohol-impaired or drugimpaired operation of motor vehicles; and (2) increase the use of 

safety belts by occupants of motor vehicles. These funds may be 

used to pay for the development, production, and use of broadcast 

and print media in carrying out traffic safety law enforcement campaigns. 

Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive Grants.— 

Section 2012 of SAFETEA–LU authorizes incentive grants to states 

that enforce laws requiring any child riding in a passenger vehicle 

who is too large to be secured in a child safety seat to be secured 

in a child restraint meeting the requirements of section 3 of 

Anton’s Law (49 U.S.C. Sec. 30127 note; 116 Stat. 2772). 

Motorcyclist Safety.—Section 2010 of SAFETEA–LU authorizes 

incentive grants to encourage states to adopt and implement programs to reduce the number of single and multivehicle crashes involving motorcyclists. States may use grant funds only for motorcyclist safety training and motorcyclist awareness programs. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Section 140. The Committee continues a provision that provides 

limited funding for travel and related expenses associated with 

state management reviews and highway safety core competency development training. 

Section 141. The Committee continues a provision that exempts 

from the current fiscal year’s obligation limitation any obligation 

authority that was made available in previous public laws for multiple years including this fiscal year. 

Section 142. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

funding for the National Highway Safety Advisory Committee. 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) was established by 

the Department of Transportation Act, on October 15, 1966. The 

FRA plans, develops, and administers programs and regulations to 

promote the safe operation of freight and passenger rail transportation in the United States. The U.S. railroad system consists of 

over 550 railroads with over 187,000 freight employees, 171,000 

miles of track, and 1.35 million freight cars. In addition, the FRA 

continues to oversee grants to the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak) with the goal of assisting Amtrak with improvements to its passenger service and physical infrastructure. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $178,596,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 156,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 184,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +5,404,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ +28,000,000 

The safety and operations account provides funding for FRA’s 

safety program activities related to passenger and freight railroads. 

Funding also supports salaries and expenses and other operating 

costs related to FRA staff and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $184,000,000 for safety and oper- ations, which is $5,404,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level 

and $28,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee rejects 

the proposal to establish a rail safety user fee collected from railroads to offset salary costs associated with rail safety inspectors. Of 

the amount provided under this heading, $12,860,000 is available 

until expended. 

Rolling Stock Pooled Procurement.—August 2011, the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) announced grants totaling 

$728,565,044 for pooled procurements of diesel locomotives and bilevel passenger cars that will be used on state-supported Amtrak 

regional corridors in the Midwest, California, and Pacific Northwest. While the Committee believes in the benefits of pooled procurements and standardized equipment purchases, the Committee 

is troubled by the slow pace of these two procurements. Especially 

during a time of severe budget constraints, the Committee urges 

FRA to maximize the options to be considered through the pooled 

procurement process and to fully and fairly evaluate the total cost 

of ownership of the equipment as well as track and attendant infrastructure. The Committee is also disappointed by the lack of 

progress with the pooled procurement process. While the FRA recently released the request for proposal for the bi-level coaches, the 

locomotive procurement has not yet started. The Committee expects FRA to work with the states to ensure that the equipment 

procurement award for both the coaches and locomotives is made 

before the end of the year. Furthermore, the Committee directs 

FRA to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than July 1, 2012, a detailed plan with schedule 

milestones for making the awards through the pooled procurements 

before December 31, 2012. 

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $35,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 35,500,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 35,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The railroad research and development program provides science 

and technology support for FRA’s policy and regulatory efforts. The 

program’s objectives are to reduce the frequency and severity of 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

railroad accidents through scientific advancement, and to support 

technological innovations in conventional and high speed railroads. 

The Committee is encouraged by FRA research & development 

activities in the areas of communications-based train control and 

vital positive train control, and believes that these technologies 

show considerable potential for safety improvements and better 

management of rail capacity constraints. However, research and 

development projects related to vital positive train control demonstrate that there are various remaining technological challenges 

such as braking algorithms, for example. The Committee believes 

that it is important that FRA continues to dedicate resources toward addressing these challenges, and strongly encourages FRA to 

expedite its research and development investments in vital positive 

train control in ways that will improve safety capacity in the nation’s rail system. An important element in this regard will be focusing on the moving of block technologies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,500,000 for 

railroad research and development, which is $500,000 above the 

fiscal year 2012 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes the following allocation 

for FRA’s Railroad Research and Development account: 

Railroad System Issues ................................................................................................................ $3,374,000 

Human Factors .............................................................................................................................. 3,045,000 

Rolling Stock and Components .................................................................................................... 2,794,000 

Track and Structures .................................................................................................................... 5,075,000 

Track and Train Interaction .......................................................................................................... 3,353,000 

Train Control ................................................................................................................................. 7,330,000 

Grade Crossings ............................................................................................................................ 1,956,000 

Hazardous Materials Transportation ............................................................................................. 1,444,000 

Train Occupant Protection ............................................................................................................ 4,284,000 

R&D Facilities and Test Equipment ............................................................................................. 2,375,000 

Railroad Cooperative Research Program ...................................................................................... 500,000 

RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) 

program was established by Public Law 109–178 to provide direct 

loans and loan guarantees to State and local governments, government-sponsored entities, and railroads. Credit assistance under the 

program may be used for rehabilitating or developing rail equipment and facilities. No Federal appropriation is required to implement the program, because a non-Federal partner may contribute 

the subsidy amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in 

the form of a credit risk premium. 

The Committee maintains bill language specifying that no new 

direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made using 

Federal funds for the payment of any credit premium amount during fiscal year 2013. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIGH SPEED CORRIDORS AND INTERCITY

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... – – – 1

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 1The Administration requested $1,000,000,000 as mandatory spending for a new Network Development account for similar activities. 

The Capital Assistance for High Speed Corridors and Intercity 

Passenger Rail Service program was first funded in the American 

Reinvestment Recovery Act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no funding for capital assistance for 

high speed corridors and intercity passenger rail service in fiscal 

year 2013. The recommendation is the same as the fiscal year 2012 

enacted level, and $1,000,000,000 below the budget request. 

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

(AMTRAK) 

Amtrak operates trains over 20,000 miles of track owned by 

freight railroad carriers, and over about 654 miles of its own track, 

most of which is on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) from Washington, D.C., to Boston, Massachusetts. Amtrak operates both electrified trains, which can achieve speeds of up to 150 mph on the 

highest quality track on the NEC, and diesel locomotives, which 

currently can achieve speeds between 74–110 miles per hour. 

Congressional budget justification.—The Committee appreciates 

the level of detail in the fiscal year 2013 budget justifications and 

directs Amtrak to continue to submit justifications with a similar 

level of detail in all future budget years. 

OPERATING GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $466,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 350,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥116,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ +350,000,000 

Amtrak runs a deficit each year and requires a federal subsidy 

to cover both operating losses and capital investments. The Committee commends Amtrak for taking steps to lower the needed Federal subsidy for operating losses. While not yet fully self-sufficient, 

Amtrak has taken steps that reduce the need for a Federal subsidy 

by over $100,000,000 in fiscal year 2012. However, Amtrak typically requests and receives more funding than it actually needs, resulting in an excessive appropriation each fiscal year. For example 

in fiscal year 2012, Amtrak requested $616,000,000 for its operating subsidy and was appropriated $466,000,000. To date, Amtrak 

projects to lose $345,000,000, making the excess subsidy around 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

1 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Mean Hourly Wage of Transportation Attendants, Except Flight Attendants is $11.64. People working in this field provide services to 

ensure the safety and comfort of passengers aboard ships, buses, trains, or within the station 

or terminal. They perform duties such as greeting passengers, explaining the use of safety 

equipment, serving meals or beverages, and answering questions related to travel. This definition excludes ‘‘Baggage Porters and Bellhops’’ 

$121,000,000. The following chart demonstrates this dynamic over 

the past three fiscal years. 

Amtrak Funding Levels ($millions) FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 

President’s Budget Request ................................................................................... 572 563 1 616 

Appropriation ........................................................................................................... 563 563 466 

Actual Loss ............................................................................................................. 420 446 2 345 

Excess Appropriation ............................................................................................... 143 117 121 

1 In fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the President requested funds for Amtrak as mandatory; thus, $616 million is Amtrak’s Grant request. 2 This is Amtrak’s estimate of end-of-year loss, based on monthly progress reports. 

The Committee notes the majority of Amtrak’s services are profitable. However, federally mandated services such as long-distance 

and state-supported routes sustain large losses that cannot be overcome by Amtrak’s profitable services. The table below reflects the 

profitability, or lack thereof, of Amtrak’s six major lines of business. 

Amtrak’s Line of Business 

Profit/(Loss) 

FY 2010 FY 2011 

Route Performance—Acela ............................................................................................................. $135.1 $208.1 

Route Performance—Northeast Regional ....................................................................................... 6.6 47.1 

Route Performance—State Supported Routes ................................................................................ (181.2) (148.4) 

Route Performance—Long Distance Routes ................................................................................... (520.4) (553.5) 

National Train Service NonCore ....................................................................................................... (1.6) (37.6) 

Ancillary/Freight/Depreciation/Interest ............................................................................................. 141.5 38.1 

Total Profit/Loss ...................................................................................................................... (420.0) (446.2) 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $350,000,000 for operating grants 

for Amtrak, which is $116,000,000 below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and $350,000,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee includes bill language allowing the Secretary to 

retain up to one-half of one percent for the use of the FRA in the 

implementation of the Amtrak Operating Grants as authorized by 

section 103 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement 

Act. FRA requires such funds to oversee the operating grants to 

Amtrak, to ensure prudent use of federal funds and to foster transparency. 

Food, Beverage and First Class Services.—In fiscal year 2011, 

food and beverage services resulted in $85 million in direct operating losses. The majority of these losses are attributable to long 

distance routes and labor costs. While Amtrak has made progress 

at reducing commissary and support costs, labor costs have increased mainly due to wage increases. Currently, the average salary of an on-board service attendant is between $24.11 and $27.09 

per hour. This is more than twice the average salary of a transportation attendant across various transportation modes,1 and over 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

2 According to Amtrak Financial and BLS data. 

20% higher than the average salary of a flight attendant.2 Further, 

in Amtrak’s last negotiated labor agreement in 2010, on-board 

service attendants were guaranteed a 3% wage increase per year 

until 2014. 

The Committee is concerned with the taxpayer footing the bill for 

Amtrak’s consistently unprofitable Food, Beverage and First Class 

Service. The Committee directs Amtrak to create performance 

metrics in its next five year financial plan to reduce costs in food 

service, especially in labor costs and commissary and support costs. 

Further, the Committee directs the Amtrak Inspector General 

(IG) to submit an analysis of the cost of providing food service. The 

IG should conduct a comprehensive cost comparison of current 

services versus the alternative of Amtrak contracting out these 

services. This cost comparison should include the total cost of potential buy-outs of current employees. Further, the IG should submit an analysis of which positions in food service can be contracted 

out and which positions cannot. This analysis and report shall be 

provided to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

by November 1, 2012. 

Reduced price fares.—The bill continues a provision that prohibits funding on routes where Amtrak is offering 50 percent or 

more off the normal, peak fare. 

CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD

PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $952,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... $1,452,000,000 

Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. $500,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ $1,452,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,452,000,000 for capital grants, of which no less than $271,000,000 is provided for Amtrak’s debt 

service. The Committee’s recommendation is $500,000,000 above 

the level enacted in fiscal year 2012 and $1,452,000,000 above the 

budget request. 

Bridges and Tunnels Grants.—The bill provides $500,000,000 of 

capital funds to fund high priority, state-of-good-repair, intercity 

infrastructure projects owned by Amtrak or States. Funding should 

go to existing infrastructure needs rather than unrealistic new 

high-speed rail lines to nowhere. This funding shall be used only 

to reduce the state-of-good-repair infrastructure backlog, and it 

must provide joint transportation benefits of regional significance. 

Further, this funding may not supplant any local, state or private 

funding sources for projects that are otherwise programmed under 

Amtrak or States’ funded capital programs. The bill allows up to 

$80,000,000 of these funds to be used for Amtrak operating assistance only if the Secretary of Transportation determines that Amtrak requires such assistance to remain operational. The Committee strongly believes that these infrastructive funds should be 

used for capital improvement and only used for operating assistVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

ance in the event of an unanticipated and emergency shortfall. Finally, the Federal share of any grant shall not exceed 80%. 

Americans with Disabilities Act.—The Committee recommends 

that Amtrak use no less than $50,000,000 of its capital funds to assist it in meeting its statutory obligations under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA requires that Amtrak make 

all intercity passenger rail stations readily accessible to and usable 

by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use 

wheelchairs, as soon as practicable. 

Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission.—The Committee recommends up to $3,000,000, instead of 

up to one half of one percent of the funds provided under this heading, as enacted in fiscal year 2012 and as proposed in the budget 

request. The Committee directs the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission to submit its FY 2014 

budget request to the Appropriations Committees in similar format 

and substance as those submitted by other executive agencies of 

the federal government. 

NEXT GENERATION HIGH SPEED RAIL

(RESCISSION)

The Committee recommends the permanent rescission of 

$1,973,000 from previously appropriated funds. 

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

(RESCISSION)

The Committee recommends the permanent rescission of 

$4,419,000 from previously appropriated funds. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Section 150. The Committee retains a provision that ceases the 

availability of Amtrak funds if a railroad contracts for services outside the United States for any service performed by a full-time or 

part-time Amtrak employee as of July 1, 2006. 

Section 151. The Committee retains a provision, which allows 

FRA to receive and use cash or spare parts to repair and replace 

damaged automated track inspection cars and equipment in connection with the automated track inspection program. 

Section 152. The Committee includes a provision which authorizes the Secretary to allow issuers of any preferred stock to redeem 

or repurchase such stock sold to the Department. 

Section 153. The Committee continues a provision that limits 

overtime to $35,000 per employee, allows Amtrak’s president to 

waive this restriction for specific employees for safety or operational efficiency reasons, and requires notification to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of granting such waivers. 

Section 154. The Committee includes a provision which transfers 

unobligated balances in contract authority that were originally authorized for Magnetic Levitation to activities authorized under the 

Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Hazard Elimination Program. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as a 

component of the Department of Transportation on July 1, 1968, 

when most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were transferred from 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Known as the 

Urban Mass Transportation Administration until enactment of the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit Administration administers federal financial assistance programs for planning, developing, and improving comprehensive mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban 

areas. 

The most recent authorization for the programs under the Federal Transit Administration is contained in the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA–LU) (P.L. 109–59). During the authorization period 

provided under, the annual Appropriations Acts included annual 

limitations on obligations for the formula and bus grants programs, 

and direct appropriations of budget authority from the General 

Fund of the Treasury for the FTA’s administrative expenses, research programs, and capital investment grants. The transit programs authorized under SAFETEA–LU expired on September 30, 

2011, with short term extensions continuing the activities. 

In the past, the Committee has assumed a continuation of the 

program authorized by SAFETEA–LU, or something very similar. 

The Committee is confident that new surface authorization is forthcoming, and had tried to recommend funding levels and authorities 

that are flexible enough to meet the new bill. While the Committee 

is prepared for some changes, it appears that the new authorization will adhere more closely to the SAFETEA–LU account structure rather than the accounts proposed by the Administration and 

therefore, the Committee has chosen to propose appropriations consistent with prior years. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $98,713,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 166,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 100,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +1,287,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥66,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $100,000,000 for FTA’s administrative expenses, an increase of $1,287,000 over the fiscal 

year 2012 level, and a decrease of $66,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommendation provides for the base program and does not include the funds requested to retain employees 

brought on pursuant to the stimulus bill’s funding, nor does it include funds for new unauthorized safety offices. 

Unauthorized Safety Office.—Once again, FTA is proposing to establish an office to regulate local rail transit safety. While the 

Committee wholly endorses the efforts and regulations of state offices overseeing the safety of transit and rail systems within their 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

states, the Committee notes that there are major challenges to FTA 

undertaking this initiative, aside from the lack of authorization, 

that have led the Committee to determine that Federal funds are 

not appropriate. Based on a Committee hearing with the DOT Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office 

on March 29, 2012, and two reports issued on the topic: DOT OIG’s 

‘‘Challenges to Improving Oversight of Rail Transit Safety and Implementing an Enhanced Federal Role’’ (MH–2012–048) and GAO’s 

‘‘FTA’s Programs are Helping Address Transit Agencies’ Safety 

Challenges, but Improved Performance Goals and Measures Could 

Better Focus Efforts’’, the Committee believes there is plenty FTA 

can accomplish within existing funds and existing authorities to be 

a leader in advising states and transit agencies on safety concerns. 

Further, both reports mention that FTA has issues and deficiencies 

in its own rail accident database, and that major obstacles exist to 

implementing a nation-wide, one-size fits all system. According to 

the IG and GAO, FTA still has not achieved the recommendations 

included in both reports. Until FTA can get its house in order to 

manage the program currently in place, additional funds, FTE and 

responsibilities would simply distract the agency and the Committee will not recommend funds for these new activities. 

Operating Plans.—The Committee reiterates its direction from 

previous years which requires the FTA’s operating plan to include 

a specific allocation of administrative expenses resources. The operating plan should include a delineation of full time equivalent employees, for the following offices: Office of the Administrator; Office 

of Administration; Office of Chief Counsel; Office of Communications and Congressional Affairs; Office of Program Management; 

Office of Budget and Policy; Office of Research, Demonstration and 

Innovation; Office of Civil Rights; Office of Planning and Environment; and Regional Offices. Further, the operating plan must include any new programs or changes to the budget request, including new grant programs. In addition, the Committee directs the 

FTA to notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

at least thirty days in advance of any change that results in an increase or decrease of more than five percent from the initial operating plan submitted to the Committees for fiscal year 2013. 

Budget Justifications and Annual New Starts Report.—The Committee also continues the direction to FTA to submit future budget 

justifications in a format consistent with the instruction provided 

in House Report 109–153. FTA is free to submit a budget in alternate formats, but must also include the information required by 

the Committee. The Committee has again included bill language 

requiring FTA to submit the annual new starts report with the initial submission of the budget request due in February, 2013. 

Transit Security.—The Committee continues bill language prohibiting FTA from creating a permanent office of transit security. 

The Committee’s position remains that the Department of Homeland Security is the lead agency on transportation security and has 

overall responsibility among all modes of transportation, including 

rail and transit lines. 

Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs).—TEA–21 required 

that the FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as well as the House Committee on Transportation and 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking sixty days 

before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its notification 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Committee directs the FTA to include the following: (1) a copy of the 

proposed full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual 

federal appropriations required for that project; (3) yearly and total 

federal appropriations that can be reasonably planned or anticipated for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2012; (4) a detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and anticipated 

FFGAs against the program authorization; (5) an evaluation of 

whether the alternatives analysis made by the applicant fully assessed all viable alternatives; (6) a financial analysis of the 

project’s cost and sponsor’s ability to finance the project, which 

shall be conducted by an independent examiner and which shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and the finance 

plan; (7) the source and security of all public- and private-sector financial instruments; (8) the project’s operating plan, which enumerates the project’s future revenue and ridership forecasts; and 

(9) a listing of all planned contingencies and possible risks associated with the project. 

The Committee continues the direction to FTA to inform the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing thirty 

days before approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any 

full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to changes 

shall include any budget revisions or program changes that materially alter the project as originally stipulated in the full funding 

grant agreement, including any proposed change in rail car procurements. In addition, the Committee directs FTA to continue reporting monthly to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the status of each project with a full funding grant 

agreement or that is within two years of a full funding grant agreement. The Committee finds the monthly updates informative and 

a useful oversight tool. 

FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $8,360,565,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 8,178,557,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,360,565,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 . .............................................. +182,008,000 

Formula grants to states and local agencies funded under the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) fall into the following categories: Alaska Railroad, clean fuels grant program, over-the-road 

bus accessibility program, urbanized area formula grants, bus and 

bus facility grants, fixed guideway modernization, planning programs (both metropolitan and statewide), formula grants for special needs for elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities, 

formula grants for other than urbanized areas, job access and reverse commute formula program, new freedom program, growing 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

states and high density states formula, National Transit Database, 

alternatives analysis, and alternative transportation in parks and 

public lands. SAFETEA–LU provided contract authority for the formula and bus program from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. The Appropriations Act sets an annual obligation 

limitation for such authority. This account is the only FTA account 

funded from the highway trust fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an obligation limitation of 

$8,360,565,000,000 for the formula programs and activities which 

is $182,008,000 above the budget request and the same as the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Funds are contingent upon enactment 

of legislation reauthorizing the transit program, and available for 

an array of programs under chapter 53 of title 49 United States 

Code. It is the intent of the Committee that the specific authorities 

and provisions will be determined by a subsequent reauthorization 

of the formula transit program, or the appropriations conference 

process. The Committee’s recommendation also includes 

$9,400,000,000 in liquidating funds. 

RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $44,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 120,957,000 

Recommended in the bill 44,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥76,957,000 

Grants for transit research are authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (Public Law 109–59) (SAFETEA–LU). Starting in fiscal year 

2006, activities formerly under the ‘Transit Planning and Research’ 

account are now under the ‘Formula and Bus Grants’ account. The 

National Research program, the Transit Cooperative Research Program, and the National Institute are funded under this new heading. Funding for the National Research programs will be used to 

cover costs for FTA’s essential safety and security activities and 

transit safety data collection. Under the national component of the 

program, FTA is a catalyst in the research, development and deployment of transportation methods and technologies which address issues such as accessibility for the disabled, air quality, traffic congestion, and transit services and operational improvements. 

The University Research Centers program will provide continued 

support for research education and technology transfer activities 

aimed at addressing regional and national transportation problems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $44,000,000 for FTA’s research activities, the same as last year’s level. FTA proposed a new account, 

‘‘Research and Technology Deployment’’ as a mandatory program 

funded at a level $76,957,000 over the level recommended in this 

bill. The Committee did not receive an authorization or funding 

proposal and has chosen to continue with the already established 

account. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

Consistent with the direction that was provided in previous 

years, the Committee requires FTA to report by May 15, 2013, on 

all FTA-sponsored research projects from fiscal year 2012 and 

2013. For each project, the report should include information on 

the National relevance of the research, relevance to the transit industry and community, expected final product and delivery date, 

sources of non-FTA funding committed to the project or research 

institute, and FTA funding history. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $1,955,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 2,235,486,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,816,993,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥138,007,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥418,493,000 

Grants for capital investment to rail or other fixed guideway 

transit systems are awarded to public bodies and agencies (transit 

authorities and other state and local public bodies and agencies 

thereof) including states, municipalities, other political subdivisions 

of states; public agencies and instrumentalities of one or more 

states; and certain public corporations, boards and commissions 

under state law. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109–59) 

(SAFETEA–LU) made two significant changes to the major capital 

investment grant program. First, SAFETEA–LU funded the program entirely from the General Fund of the Treasury. Second, 

grants for bus and bus facilities and fixed guideway modernization 

projects, plus alternative analysis funds were made eligible under 

the ‘Formula and Bus Grants’ account, which is funded by the 

mass transit account of the highway trust fund. Grants to the 

Denali Commission and the Hawaii and Alaska ferries were dictated by SAFETEA–LU. Other projects and investments were specifically authorized by SAFETEA–LU and are subject to regulation 

and oversight by FTA. However, like the other surface transportation programs, authority for the capital investment grants program expired at the end of September 2011 and is dependent on 

authorization extensions until the enactment of a multi-year reauthorization package. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,816,993,000 for capital investment grants which is $138,007,000 below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and $418,493,000 below the budget request. Within the 

amount provided, the Committee includes a total of $27,394,000, or 

approximately one and a half percent, for oversight activities of the 

investments in this account. The Committee’s recommendation includes funding for the following capital investment grants: 

Fiscal Year 2013 

recommendation 

Small Starts: 

CA Fresno, Fresno Area Express .................................................. $10,000,000 

CA San Francisco, Van Ness Ave BRT ......................................... 10,000,000 

FL Jacksonville, JTA BRT (North) ............................................... 19,074,600 

MI Grand Rapids, Silver Line BRT .............................................. 14,744,000 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

Fiscal Year 2013 

recommendation 

TX El Paso, Mesa Corridor BRT ................................................... 15,237,058 

FL Jacksonville JTA Southeast ..................................................... 19,101,000 

OR West Eugene Emerald Express ............................................... 19,410,136 

AZ Mesa, Central Mesa .................................................................. 20,000,000 

Signed Full Funding Grant Agreements: 

NY Long Island Rail Road East Side Access ................................ 215,000,000 

NY Second Avenue Subway ........................................................... 123,384,621 

TX Dallas Northwest/Southeast .................................................... 79,030,569 

VA Northern VA Dulles ................................................................. 96,000,000 

WA Seattle University Link LRT .................................................. 110,000,000 

MN Central Corridor LRT ............................................................. 98,443,694 

FL Orlando Central Florida ........................................................... 30,080,650 

CO Denver Eagle ............................................................................ 150,000,000 

TX Houston North Corridor ........................................................... 100,000,000 

TX Houston Southeast Corridor .................................................... 100,000,000 

UT Salt Lake City Draper ............................................................. 5,716,600 

CT Hartford New Britain Busway ................................................ 58,715,922 

New Starts—Anticipated in 2013: 

CA San Francisco Third Street ..................................................... 100,000,000 

HI Honolulu .................................................................................... 100,000,000 

CA South Sacramento Corridor Phase 2 ...................................... 45,660,000 

CA San Jose Silicon Valley ............................................................ 150,000,000 

OR Portland-Milwaukie ................................................................. 100,000,000 

While the Committee’s recommendation is slightly lower than 

the budget request, the Committee made every effort to address the 

priorities in this account. First, the Committee funded every project 

with a signed full funding grant agreement (FFGA) as a contract 

has already been made between the Department and the various 

states and localities. Second, the Committee funded projects that 

have a high likelihood of reaching a FFGA during 2012, and all of 

the small starts proposed for funding in fiscal year 2013. The Committee was able to fund every FFGA at the negotiated payout 

amount, and was able to provide a healthy payout for the first year 

of the anticipated new FFGAs. 

The Committee cannot stress the point enough: capital investment grants are discretionary dollars. FTA needs to manage the 

projects and the pipeline so as to not overwhelm the discretionary 

budget of the agency. Relatively few communities have a fixed 

guideway system, and fixed guideway systems are not suitable for 

every community so it is befuddling as to why the budget would 

propose making the activities under this account mandatory and 

the funds drawn from a trust fund funded from the gas tax paid 

for by all, to help the transportation infrastructure for all. 

The Committee’s recommendation funds the small starts and bus 

rapid transit projects out of the capital investment grants account. 

The sleight of hand provision which directed these projects to be 

funded out of the formula account is simply not an option in fiscal 

year 2013. Neither the House or Senate surface reauthorization 

proposals contain discretionary funds to shoulder the burden of financing said projects. Upon inquiry by the Committee, FTA has 

stated that should the fiscal year 2013 appropriation again move 

the small starts/bus rapid transit projects to an account that, upon 

enactment of a new surface authorization bill, cannot accommodate 

those projects, FTA has no way to come through with the funding. 

The Committee and FTA will need to give a closer look at the 

projects moving through the grant pipeline and be more selective 

on which projects receive Federal dollars. The Committee supports 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

mass transit and supports local efforts to maximize transit expansion, but project construction will need to be financed to a greater 

degree at the local level. Not every project, even those that complete all the requirements under Title 49, will be able to receive 

Federal funds. Fixed guideway systems are not an entitlement. The 

Committee supports FTA’s ability to provide technical assistance 

and assistance with project oversight to help localities make sound 

investments. However, the Committee directs FTA to only further 

projects to a full funding grant agreement if the project requires a 

less than 60 percent new starts share and rates medium high or 

high in the categories related to finance and reducing congestion. 

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $150,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 135,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 150,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ +15,000,000 

Section 601 of Division B of the Passenger Rail Investment and 

Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–432) authorized $1.5 billion over a ten-year period for preventive maintenance and capital 

grants for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA). The law requires that the federal funds be 

matched dollar for dollar by Virginia, Maryland and the District of 

Columbia in equal proportions. The compact required under the 

law has been established and Virginia, Maryland and the District 

of Columbia have all committed to providing $50 million each in 

local matching funds. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for preventive maintenance and capital grants for WMATA, which is 

$15,000,000 more than the budget request and equal to the authorization and fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The Committee directs 

WMATA to continue addressing the safety issues within the agency, specifically, those identified by the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB). Further, the Committee directs WMATA to 

continue with its capital improvement plans and not defer capital 

and safety investments in order to offset operating costs. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Section 160. The Committee continues the provision that exempts previously made transit obligations from limitations on obligations. 

Section 161. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

funds appropriated for capital investment grants and bus and bus 

facilities not obligated by September 30, 2015, plus other recoveries 

to be available for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309. 

Section 162. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

for the transfer of prior year appropriations from older accounts to 

be merged into new accounts with similar, current activities. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

Section 163. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

prior year funds available for capital investment grants to be used 

in this fiscal year for such projects. 

Section 164. The Committee continues the provision that requires unobligated funds or recoveries under section 5309 of title 

49 that are available for reallocation shall be directed to projects 

eligible to use the funds for the purposes for which they were originally intended. 

Section 165. The Committee continues the provision that provides flexibility to fund program management oversight activities 

as authorized by section 5316 of title 49, United States Code. 

Section 166. The Committee includes a new provision that prohibits funds from being used to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5309(m)(6)(B) 

and (C). 

Section 167. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits a full funding grant agreement for a project with a new 

starts share greater than 60%. 

Section 168. The Committee has included a new provision regarding charter bus service. In prior year appropriations Acts, 

transit operators in Seattle, Washington have been exempt from 

the regulations regarding charter bus service. The standing regulation in part 604 to title 49, Code of Federal Regulations was the 

result of a provision in SAFETEA–LU (P.L. 109–59) which directed 

the Secretary to initiate a negotiated rulemaking process to bring 

both transit and charter bus operators to the table and come to an 

agreement about nonscheduled bus service. The negotiated rulemaking process was long, but fair, and in the end the parties 

reached a consensus on most of the issues and FTA issued the final 

rule in 2007. Other communities, companies, and agencies across 

the country have complied in good faith with the negotiated rule, 

except one. Rather than once again legislatively prohibiting the 

Secretary from enforcing this regulation, the Committee directs the 

Secretary and the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration to sit down with the stakeholders and come to a resolution 

on this issue. 

Section 169. The Committee continues the provision that permits 

the Secretary to consider significant private contributions when 

calculating the non-Federal share of new starts projects. 

Section 169A. The Committee includes a new provision that rescinds a total of $102,889,367 in unobligated prior year funds. 

Section 169B. The Committee includes a new provision regarding 

a certain fixed guideway project in Houston, Texas. 

Section 169C. The Committee continues a provision that allows 

fuel and utilities for vehicles to be treated as a capital maintenance 

expense under section 5307 in fiscal year 2013, up to $100,000,000. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $32,259,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 33,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 33,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +741,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The Great Lakes Saint Lawrence Seaway System, located between Montreal and Lake Erie, is a binational, 15-lock system 

jointly operated by the U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation (SLSDC) and its Canadian counterpart, the Canadian 

St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. The SLSDC was 

established by the St. Lawrence Seaway Act of 1954 and is a wholly owned government corporation and an operating administration 

of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The SLSDC is 

charged with operating and maintaining the U.S. portion of the St. 

Lawrence Seaway. This responsibility includes the two U.S. locks 

in Massena, New York, vessel traffic control in portions of the St. 

Lawrence River and Lake Ontario, and trade development functions to enhance the utilization of the St. Lawrence Seaway. 

The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 authorized the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as a source of appropriations for 

SLSDC operations and maintenance. Additionally, the SLSDC generates non-federal revenues which can then be used for operations 

and maintenance. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $33,000,000 

to fund the operations, maintenance, and capital asset renewal 

needs of the SLSDC. This funding level is the same as the fiscal 

year 2012 request and $741,000 more than the prior year appropriation. The Committee continues the requirement that the 

SLSDC provides semiannual reports consistent with the requirements stated in the Explanatory Statement of the Department of 

Transportation Appropriations Act of 2009. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support of the 

Nation’s security and economic needs, as authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. MARAD’s mission is to promote the development and maintenance of an adequate, well-balanced United 

States merchant marine, sufficient to carry the Nation’s domestic 

waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of its waterborne 

foreign commerce, and capable of serving as a naval and military 

auxiliary in time of war or national emergency. MARAD, working 

with the Department of Defense (DoD), helps provide a seamless, 

time-phased transition from peacetime to wartime operations, 

while balancing the defense and commercial elements of the maritime transportation system. MARAD also manages the maritime 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

security program, the voluntary intermodal sealift agreement program and the ready reserve force, which assures DoD access to 

commercial and strategic sealift and associated intermodal capability. Further, MARAD’s education and training programs through 

the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six state maritime academies help create skilled U.S. merchant marine officers. 

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $174,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 184,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 184,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +10,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The purpose of the Maritime Security Program (MSP) is to maintain and preserve a U.S. flag merchant fleet to serve the national 

security needs of the United States. The MSP provides direct payments to U.S. flagship operators engaged in U.S.-foreign trade. 

Participating operators are required to keep the vessels in active 

commercial service and are required to provide intermodal sealift 

support to the Department of Defense in times of war or national 

emergency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $184,000,000 for this account, an increase of $10,000,000 over the level enacted 

in fiscal year 2012. This recommendation provides funding directly 

to MARAD and assumes that MARAD will continue to administer 

the program with support and consultation of the Department of 

Defense. Funds are available until expended. 

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $156,258,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 146,298,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 145,753,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥10,505,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥545,000 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $145,753,000 for MARAD operations and training expenses, $10,505,000 less than the fiscal year 2012 

funding level and $545,000 below the fiscal year 2013 budget request. 

MARAD Operations.—Of the funds provided, $47,000,000 is for 

headquarters and regional office operations, and maritime program 

expenses. This proposal reflects a reduction of $1,199,000 from the 

fiscal year 2012 enacted level and $2,000,000 below the request. 

The Committee notes that MARAD reports 33 vacancies, as of January 2012, in the headquarters and regional offices. The fiscal year 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

2012 statement of the managers directed MARAD to report on the 

number of vacancies concurrent with the fiscal year 2013 budget 

submission. The report was ultimately transmitted with a cover letter dated May 10, 2012. The Committee directs MARAD to apply 

the reduction from the budget request to salaries and expenses. 

Further, the Committee continues the reporting requirement that 

MARAD submit information on the number of vacancies at 

MARAD headquarters and regional offices, and the duties associated with each vacancy concurrent with the fiscal year 2014 budget 

submission. 

United States Merchant Marine Academy.—The U.S. Merchant 

Marine Academy (the Academy or USMMA) provides educational 

programs for men and women to become shipboard officers and 

leaders in the maritime industry. The Committee continues to include language requiring all funding for the Academy go directly to 

the Secretary, and that 50 percent of the funding will not be available until MARAD submits a plan detailing how the funding will 

be spent. The Committee’s funding recommendation includes a 

total of $77,253,000 in fiscal year 2013 for the USMMA, of which 

up to $63,253,000 is for Academy operations and not less than 

$14,000,000 is for capital improvements. While the Committee is 

providing the budget request of $34,146,000 for the salaries and 

benefits to USMMA employees, the Committee can’t help but note 

the USMMA is reporting, as of January 2012, a 16 percent vacancy 

rate with 52 unfilled positions. Should the USMMA find they still 

have a large number of vacancies in June 2013, the Committee 

urges MARAD and the USMMA explore opportunities to shift the 

unused salaries and expenses funds to capital improvements 

through the regular reprogramming procedures. 

Gender and ethnic diversity at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy [USMMA].—The Committee is concerned about the lack of diversity at the USMMA. The levels of female and ethnic minority 

students at the USMMA are very low, below those at other service 

academies and state marine academies. The Committee understands that the USMMA is in the process of hiring a permanent 

staff person to address diversity issues but is still concerned about 

the lack of a plan beyond that to address diversity. The Committee 

directs the USMMA to develop a coordinated comprehensive strategy to recruit and retain female and ethnic minority students. The 

USMMA is directed to provide the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations with a report summarizing its efforts to address 

this issue by March 21, 2013. 

State Maritime Academies.—The Committee recommends 

$17,500,000 for the state maritime academies. Of the funds provided, $3,600,000 is for direct payments, $2,400,000 is for student 

payments, and $11,500,000 is for schoolship maintenance and repair. 

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $5,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +1,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥6,000,000 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

MARAD serves as the federal government’s disposal agent for 

government-owned merchant vessels weighing 1,500 gross tons or 

more. The ship disposal program provides resources to dispose of 

obsolete merchant-type vessels in the National Defense Reserve 

Fleet (NDRF). The Maritime Administration was required by Public Law 106–398 to dispose of its obsolete inventory by the end of 

2006. These vessels pose a significant environmental threat due to 

the presence of hazardous substances such as asbestos and solid 

and liquid polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). As reported in the fiscal year 2013 budget documents, MARAD has custody of approximately 49 obsolete vessels that are not yet under contract for disposal, a reduction of 15 ships from the 64 reported in the 2012 

budget. The obsolete ships are located at the James River Reserve 

Fleet site in Virginia (14 ships—a reduction of 2 from the prior 

year), the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet (SBRF) site in California (27 

ships—a reduction of 12 from the prior year), and the Beaumont 

Reserve Fleet site in Texas (8 ships—one less than the prior year). 

MARAD anticipates removing another 9 ships from the SBRF during fiscal year 2012. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for this account, 

$6,000,000 below the budget request and $1,500,000 below the fiscal year 2012 funding level. Funds are available until expended. 

Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends 

$3,000,000 for maintenance and safeguarding of the Nuclear Ship 

Savannah. The remaining funds are for ship disposal activities. 

The Committee notes MARAD has successfully put a number of 

ships out for sale rather than contracting for disposal, thus saving 

the taxpayer millions. The fiscal year 2013 proposed funding level 

reflects the Committee’s confidence that MARAD can continue moving a significant number of ships out of the NDRF by sales rather 

than by contract. 

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $3,740,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 3,750,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,750,000 

Bill compared with:.

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +10,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program, as provided for by 

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

expended. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $3,750,000 for 

the Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program, $10,000 more 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

than the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. MARAD currently 

manages a loan portfolio of approximately $2,300,000,000. Since 

2009, the agency has reported consistently that the number of 

loans not in default has fallen short of the stated goal of 92%. Until 

the portfolio performs up to the agency’s goal of 92% of loans not 

in default, the Committee cannot endorse an expansion of this loan 

program 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 170. The Committee continues a provision that allows 

the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and services and 

make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy involving government property under the control of MARAD and rental payments 

shall be paid into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

Section 171. The Committee continues a provision regarding 

MARAD ship disposal. 

PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) administers nationwide safety programs designed to protect the public and the environment from risks inherent in the 

commercial transportation of hazardous materials by pipeline, air, 

rail, vessel, and highway. Many of these materials are essential to 

the national economy. The agency’s highest priority is safety, and 

it uses safety management principles and security assessments to 

promote the safe transport of hazardous materials and the security 

of the nation’s pipelines. 

OPERATIONAL EXPENSES

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $21,360,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 21,047,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 23,030,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +1,670,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ +1,983,000 

This appropriation finances the operational support costs for 

PHMSA, including agency-wide functions of administration, management, policy development, legal counsel, budget, financial management, civil rights, human resources, acquisition services, information technology, and governmental and public affairs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $23,030,000 for PHMSA operational 

expenses, of which $639,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline 

Safety Fund. This is $1,670,000 above fiscal year 2012, and 

$1,983,000 above the budget request. The Committee includes bill 

language directing PHMSA to transfer $1,500,000 to the pipeline 

safety program to fund the pipeline information grants to communities. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

The Committee recommends increased funding to cover base adjustments in the pipeline safety program and to continue support 

for PHMSA’s seven-year information technology (IT) modernization 

effort, which began in fiscal year 2010. The Committee includes 

$3,815,000 of total operational expenses to further the IT modernization, as proposed in the budget request. The Committee directs PHMSA to include full lifecycle costs of this IT modernization 

initiative in its future budget justifications. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $42,338,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 50,673,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 42,546,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +208,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥8,127,000 

The hazardous materials safety program advances the safe and 

secure transport of hazardous materials (hazmat) in commerce by 

air, truck, railroad and vessel. PHMSA evaluates hazmat safety 

risks, develops and enforces regulations for transporting hazmat, 

educates shippers and carriers, investigates hazmat incidents and 

failures, conducts research, and provides grants to improve emergency response to transportation incidents involving hazmat. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $42,546,000 to continue the agency’s hazardous materials safety program, which is $208,000 above fiscal 

year 2012 and $8,127,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends $1,725,000 of the total to remain available for 

three years for long-term research and development contracts. 

President’s Fee Proposal.—The Committee does not include the 

President’s request for a new fee on the processing and enforcing 

of special permits and approvals, which would have raised 

$12,000,000 in fiscal year 2013. An expensive new fee should not 

be enacted through an appropriations Act, especially when the new 

fee would be imposed on top of an existing fee structure, but rather 

through authorizing legislation originating in the committees of jurisdiction. 

Special Permits and Approvals.—The Administration’s request to 

collect new fees for the processing and enforcing of special permits 

and approvals (SP&A) is intended to relieve the increased costs associated with a dramatic increase in program workload over the 

past few years. The workload increased because PHMSA made necessary program improvements in response to reviews and audits by 

DOT’s Office of the Inspector General and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 

The Committee recognizes the value of these improvements, the 

increased demand on the SP&A program, and the value of the 

SP&A program in ensuring safety while accommodating industry 

innovations in safely transporting hazardous materials. However, 

the Committee notes PHMSA can and should deal with the increased workload in ways that do not require a permanent expansion of program size and resources. The SP&A process should be 

streamlined using ongoing IT system modernizations, and it should 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

be reevaluated to ensure it is operating efficiently and as only exceptions to the HMR, which is the primary method of regulating 

the transport of hazardous materials. 

The Committee directs PHMSA to evaluate how it can better utilize the Hazardous Materials Regulations and to formulate recommendations on how and when HMR improvements can occur, 

the cost-savings of such improvements, and the anticipated lessening of the SP&A workload as a result of such improvements. 

PHMSA will report such findings to the Committees on Appropriations within 180 days of enactment. 

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

(PIPELINE SAFETY DESIGN REVIEW FUND)

(Pipeline safety 

fund) 

(Oil spill liability 

trust fund) 

(Design review 

fund) Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ............................ $90,679,000 $18,573,000 – – – $109,252,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ........................ 150,500,000 21,510,000 $4,000,000 176,010,000 

Recommended in the bill ..................................... 90,679,000 18,573,000 2,000,000 111,252,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ................... 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ............... ¥59,821,000 ¥2,937,000 ¥2,000,000 ¥64,758,000 

PHMSA oversees the safety, security, and environmental protection of pipelines through analysis of data, damage prevention, education and training, development and enforcement of regulations 

and policies, research and development, grants for states pipeline 

safety programs, and emergency planning and response to accidents. The pipeline safety program is responsible for a national 

regulatory program to protect the public against the risks to life 

and property in the transportation of natural gas, petroleum and 

other hazardous materials by pipeline. The Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 expanded the role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection and created new emphasis on spill prevention 

and containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $111,252,000 to continue pipeline 

safety operations, research and development, and state grants-inaid, which is $2,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $60,758,000 

below the budget request. Of the total, $18,573,000 is from the oil 

spill liability trust fund, $90,679,000 is from the pipeline safety 

fund, and $2,000,000 is from the newly authorized pipeline safety 

design review fund. These amounts reflect the maximum authorized funding levels. 

The Committee recommends $1,058,000 of the funds provided to 

be used for the one-call State grant program, which is the same as 

fiscal year 2012. The Committee recommends $48,191,000 of the 

funds provided to remain available until September 30, 2015, for 

multi-year grants and research and development contracts, which 

is the same amount as fiscal year 2012. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

New Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund.—The Committee allows $2,000,000 of Pipeline Safety budgetary resources to be derived from the newly authorized Pipeline Safety Design Review 

Fund, which is codified at 49 U.S.C. 60117(n). The fund works as 

follows: if a new major pipeline project exceeds the authorized $2.5 

million threshold and begins the planning or construction phases 

in fiscal year 2013, then PHMSA is authorized to recoup costs associated with overseeing and inspecting it by imposing a design review fee upon the project sponsor(s). If no such projects are initiated in fiscal year 2013, then these fees will not be collected and 

these funds will not be expended. The design review fee more accurately aligns the costs of overseeing major projects with those who 

initiate them. 

Pipeline Safety Inspectors.—The Administration requests a staggering and unreasonable 120 increase in its full-time equivalent 

(FTE) for pipeline inspection and enforcement personnel. The new 

pipeline authorization, however, which President Obama signed 

into law on January 3, 2012, and which passed the House and Senate with unanimous consensus in 2011, provided only 10 new FTE 

if PHMSA first demonstrates it can fill the significant, long-standing vacancies in its pipeline inspection and enforcement personnel 

by the end of fiscal year 2013. 

As of May 14, 2012, PHMSA still had vacancies in 10 of its 135 

total FTE for pipeline inspection and enforcement. Therefore, the 

Committee provides no additional resources at this time. The Committee will reconsider a modest request for additional Pipeline 

Safety personnel in the Administration’s fiscal year 2014 budget, 

but only if PHMSA satisfies the pre-conditions enacted into law— 

by filling existing vacancies before asking for more and by determining that requested increases are necessary. 

The Committee is aware of several challenges PHMSA faces in 

hiring pipeline safety inspectors. One such challenge is the delay 

caused by the federal hiring process, which is compounded by other 

market dynamics. The Committee encourages the Office of Personnel Management to give strong consideration to PHMSA’s request for direct-hire authority for its pipeline safety inspection and 

enforcement personnel. Such authority may enable PHMSA to increase its personnel to authorized levels and thereby demonstrate 

the need for additional resources. 

Pipeline Emergencies Training Program.—The Committee reiterates its concern that the U.S. pipeline infrastructure is aging and 

poses significant safety and environmental risks. The individuals 

nationwide who are tasked with responding to pipeline disasters 

must be well-trained, and PHMSA must take seriously its role in 

providing such training through the Pipeline Emergencies Training 

Program. 

The Committee is advised there may be deficiencies in pipeline 

emergency training in various areas throughout the country. 

Therefore, the Committee directs PHMSA to report in-person to the 

Committees on Appropriations, within 180 days of enactment, on 

whether it has a robust and active training curriculum, how training is delivered, and what resources are used to prepare emergency 

responders. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

Self-contained Breathing Apparatus.—The Committee is advised 

that the approval processes for Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) respirator cylinders by both PHMSA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) may 

be duplicative and potentially restrictive of competitive options. 

The Committee requests PHMSA to conduct a study, within a year 

of enactment, on whether these approval processes can be made 

more efficient. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

(Emergency preparedness fund) 

(Emergency preparedness grant 

program) 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. $188,000 ($28,318,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ............................................... 188,000 (28,318,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................ 188,000 (28,318,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .......................................... – – – – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ........................................ – – – – – – 

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 

1990 (Public Law 101–615) requires PHMSA to: (1) develop and implement a reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; 

(2) monitor public sector emergency response training and planning 

and provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions 

and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $28,318,000 for the emergency preparedness grants program, which is the same as fiscal year 2012 

and the budget request. 

HMEP Grants.—The Committee supports PHMSA’s efforts to 

strengthen oversight of the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grants Program, in response to recent audit findings by 

the DOT Office of Inspector General. 

RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $15,981,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 13,670,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 13,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥2,487,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥170,000 

The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) 

was established as an administration within the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) effective November 30, 2004, pursuant to the 

Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement 

Act, Public Law 108–426. The mission of RITA is to provide strategic clarity to DOT’s multi-modal and intermodal research efforts, 

while coordinating the multifaceted research agenda of the Department. RITA coordinates, facilitates, and reviews the following research and development programs and activities: advancement and 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

research and development of innovative technologies, including intelligent transportation systems; education and training in transportation and transportation-related fields, including the University Transportation Centers and the Transportation Safety Institute; and activities of the Volpe National Transportation Center. 

Further, RITA includes the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

which is funded from the Federal Highway Administration’s federal-aid highway account. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $13,500,000 for fiscal 

year 2013, which is $2,487,000 below the fiscal year 2012 appropriation provided for RITA and $170,000 below the fiscal year 2013 

budget request. 

While the Committee endorses the Administration’s proposal to 

bring RITA’s functions under the Office of the Secretary, the authorizing committees of jurisdiction have not had a chance to examine the issue, or consider legislation authorizing the change. The 

Committee encourages the Secretary to find additional salaries and 

expenses savings in anticipation of the proposed realignment and 

directs the $170,000 reduction to come from this activity. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Inspector General’s office was established in 1978 to provide 

an objective and independent organization that would be more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in 

departmental programs and operations; and (2) providing a means 

of keeping the Secretary of Transportation and the Congress fully 

and currently informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of such programs and operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to 

the Secretary of Transportation and to the Congress. 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $79,624,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 84,499,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 84,499,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ...................................................... 4,875,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................... – – – 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $84,499,000 for fiscal 

year 2013, which is $4,875,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted 

level and equal to the budget request. The Committee continues to 

highly value the work of the IG in oversight of departmental programs and activities. The funding provided for fiscal year 2013 supports 27 additional FTE included in the budget request. 

The Committee recognizes that the National Transportation 

Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–443) authorized the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit, at 

least annually, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) programs and expenditures, including information security. It also 

provided that the NTSB and OIG, in the absence of a direct approVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

priation, enter into a reimbursable agreement for any NTSB-related audits or reviews performed by the OIG. The OIG continues 

to perform the annual audit of NTSB’s financial statements under 

the Chief Financial Officers Act, maintain the hotline, and conduct 

follow-up investigations on a cost reimbursement basis. The OIG 

has requested $200,000 from NTSB in its congressional justification for reimbursement of costs estimated to carry out this function. 

Unfair Business Practices.—The bill maintains language first enacted in fiscal year 2000 which authorizes the OIG to investigate 

allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair 

methods of competition by air carriers and ticket agents. 

Audit Reports.—The Committee requests the IG to continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to the Committee immediately 

after they are issued, and to continue to make the Committee 

aware immediately of any review that recommends cancellation or 

modifications to any major acquisition project or grant, or which 

recommends significant budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 15 days 

any final audit or investigative report which was requested by the 

House or Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Oversight of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.— 

The Committee has continuing concerns about the lack of oversight 

of the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority (MWAA). A recent investigation by the DOT Inspector General (IG) found a number of cases of questionable sole source contracting practices, a lack 

of ethical disclosure requirements for board members, and an overall lack of accountability and transparency. In order to improve the 

oversight of MWAA, the Committee recommendation includes a 

new provision that provides the DOT IG with oversight responsibilities for MWAA, and requires that MWAA reimburse the DOT IG 

for this new responsibility. 

Houston METRO Finances.—The Committee directs the IG to 

conduct an audit into the financial solvency of Metropolitan Transit 

Authority of Harris County, Texas (Houston METRO). As part of 

this audit, the IG should conduct a stress test to determine if 

Houston METRO has adequate finances to pay for the construction 

of new rail lines as well as the operation and maintenance of existing rail lines and the operation and maintenance of buses. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) was created in the 

Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 and is 

the successor agency to the Interstate Commerce Commission. The 

STB is an economic regulatory and adjudicatory body charged by 

Congress with resolving railroad rate and service disputes and reviewing proposed railroad mergers. The STB is decisionally independent, although it is administratively affiliated with the Department of Transportation. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110–432, (PRIIA), included new responsibilities for the STB. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $29,310,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 31,250,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 31,250,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +1,940,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $31,250,000 for fiscal year 2012, which is $1,940,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and equal to the fiscal year 2012 budget request. The 

STB is estimated to collect $1,250,000 in fees which will offset the 

appropriation for a total program cost of $30,000,000. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Section 180. The Committee continues the provision allowing the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) to use funds for aircraft; 

motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, as authorized by law. 

Section 181. The Committee continues the provision limiting appropriations for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the rate for 

an Executive Level IV. 

Section 182. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in this act for salaries and expenses of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the DOT and prohibits political 

and Presidential personnel from being assigned on temporary detail outside the DOT. 

Section 183. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

recipients of funds made available in this Act from releasing personal information, including Social Security number, medical or 

disability information, and photographs from a driver’s license or 

motor vehicle record, without express consent of the person to 

whom such information pertains; and prohibits the withholding of 

funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a state is in noncompliance with this provision. 

Section 184. The Committee continues the provision allowing 

funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 

Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration 

from states, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 

private sources to be used for expenses incurred for training may 

be credited to each agency’s respective accounts. 

Section 185. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds from being used to make a grant unless the Secretary of 

Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the Department 

or its modal administrations, and directs the Secretary to give concurrent notification for any ‘‘quick release’’ of funds from the Federal Highway Administration’s emergency relief program. 

Section 186. The Committee continues a provision allowing funds 

received from rebates, refunds, and similar sources to be credited 

to appropriations of the DOT. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

Section 187. The Committee continues a provision allowing 

amounts from improper payments to a third party contractor that 

are lawfully recovered by the DOT to be available to cover expenses 

incurred in the recovery of such payments. 

Section 188. The Committee mandates that reprogramming actions are to be approved or denied solely by the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 189. The Committee caps the amount of fees the Surface 

Transportation Board can charge and collect for late complaints 

filed at the amount authorized for court civil suit filing fees. 

Section 190. The Committee includes a provision allowing funds 

to the modal administrations to be obligated to the Office of the 

Secretary for the costs related to assessments or reimbursable 

agreements only when such amounts are for the costs of goods and 

services that are purchased to provide a direct benefit to the applicable modal administration or administrations. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(71) 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $1,331,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 1,349,400,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,326,614,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥4,886,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥22,786,000 

Management and Administration provides operating support to 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including salaries and expenses (S&E) for all HUD employees. The 

Committee supports the Department’s efforts to transform the way 

HUD does business and recommends the Department first and 

foremost focus its efforts on its human capital investments. While 

the Committee appreciates the expanded Congressional Budget 

Justifications the Department submitted, the Committee is appalled with the quality of the information the Department and Administration provides throughout the year to explain and justify 

their budget requests. 

HUD does not have adequate knowledge of the number of people 

it takes to implement a program and is not transparent about the 

budgeting of S&E resources. Further, the information HUD provides is often wrong, contains mathematical errors and calls into 

question HUD’s entire Congressional Budget Justification and the 

Department’s competence in managing its resources. The Congressional Budget Justification is delivered to the Committee on behalf 

of the President’s effort to ensure housing for the nation’s most vulnerable and to revitalize distressed communities. If the Department and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cannot provide to the Committee basic data that is accurate, it calls into question the Administration’s competence in administering the Nation’s 

housing and economic development policies. 

Therefore, the Committee directs HUD and OMB to jointly provide quarterly in-person briefings to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations on their efforts to improve data quality 

and management of the Department’s efforts and S&E resources. 

These briefings should provide updates on the Administration’s efforts to improve the Department’s budget process, hiring process, 

performance appraisal process, succession planning process and the 

budgeting of S&E resources. In addition, these briefings should include reports on the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) projected for each office in the Department compared to last year’s actual level and the authorized level for the current fiscal year. 

Full Time Equivalent Levels.—HUD should be embarrassed by 

the lack of FTE data it provides and has available internally. It is 

completely unacceptable for a Cabinet level-agency to not have sysVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

tems in place to track the most fundamental FTE data including 

FTE levels, actual onboard position levels, salary levels, benefits 

levels and employee tenure. This lack of essential information led 

to multiple Anti-Deficiency Act violations in fiscal year 2011, in 

which HUD hired more people than it had resources to pay. To 

date, HUD has not even tried to address these problems and thus 

the Committee has no faith in HUD’s ability to appropriately staff 

its operations. The Committee now will direct FTE levels for each 

office. The Committee directs the Department to operate fully within these FTE levels. The Department shall not hire a shadow workforce of contractors to perform functions normally done by government employees in order to go above these totals. 

Congressional Budget Justification.—The Committee continues 

bill language requiring HUD to submit detailed staffing justifications for each office within the Department. 

Reprogramming.—As in previous years, the Committee reiterates 

that the Department must limit the reprogramming of funds between the program, projects, and activities within each account 

without prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations. Unless otherwise identified in the bill or report, the most detailed allocation of funds presented in the budget justifications is approved, 

and any deviation from such approved allocation subject to the normal reprogramming requirements. 

Reorganizations.—The Committee expects notice one month prior 

notice to any office, program or activity reorganization. Additionally, the Committee requires notice on a monthly basis of all ongoing litigation, including any negotiations or discussions, planned or 

ongoing, regarding a consent decree between the Department and 

any other entity, including the estimated costs of such decrees. 

New initiatives.—The Committee reiterates that no changes may 

be made to any program, project, or activity if it is construed to 

have policy implications, without prior approval of the Committees 

on Appropriations. 

Relationship between HUD and the Committee on Appropriations.—The primary relationship between the Committee and HUD 

exists via the Departmental budget office. This relationship, an absolute necessity in structuring the annual appropriations Act, is 

based on the sharing of a wide range of budgetary and cost information. The Committee retains the right to call upon all offices and 

agencies within the Department, but the primary connection between the two entities exists through the budget office. To that 

end, the Committee expects that all offices within HUD will work 

with the budget office to provide timely and accurate information 

for submission to the Committee. The Department is reminded that 

directives and reports mandated in the House or Senate Appropriations reports are not optional, unless revised or eliminated by the 

Statement of Managers accompanying the Act. Finally, the Committee cautions HUD that Section 405 of the Appropriations Act 

governs the creation of new offices and policies. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS, AND MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $537,789,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 532,546,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 518,068,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥19,721,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥14,478,000 

The Administration, Operations, and Management account funds 

the salaries and expenses of the Immediate Office of the Secretary, 

the Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary and the Chief Operating Officer, the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Office of 

Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, the Office of General 

Counsel, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of Public Affairs, the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, the Office 

of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity, the Office of 

Field Policy and Management, the Office of Sustainable Housing 

and Communities, the Office of Strategic Planning and Management, the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, the Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, and the Center for Faith-Based and 

Community Initiatives. 

The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer provides general 

support services to all offices and divisions throughout HUD. These 

services include: management analysis, human resource management, employee training, performance analysis, general building 

and office services, and special activities directly assigned by the 

Secretary of HUD. 

The Office of Field Policy and Management (FPM) serves as the 

principal advisor providing oversight and communicating Secretarial priorities and policies to field office staff and HUD clients. 

The Regional and Field Office Directors act as the operational managers in each of the field offices and manage and coordinate crossprogram delivery in the field. 

The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer’s (OCPO) mission is 

to provide high-quality acquisition support services to all HUD program offices by purchasing necessary operational and mission-related goods and services; provide advice, guidance and technical assistance to all departmental offices on matters concerning procurement; assist program offices in defining and specifying their procurement needs; develop and maintain all procurement guidance 

including regulations, policies, and procedures; and assist in the 

development of sound acquisition strategies. 

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) provides leadership in instituting financial integrity, fiscal responsibility and accountability. The CFO is responsible for all aspects of financial 

management, accounting and budgetary matters; ensuring the Department establishes and meets financial management goals and 

objectives; ensuring the Department is in compliance with financial 

management legislation and directives; analyzing budgetary implications of policy and legislative proposals; and providing technical 

oversight with respect to all budget activities throughout the Department. 

Appropriations Attorneys.—During consideration of the fiscal 

year 2003 appropriations legislation, it became apparent to the 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

Committee that both the Committee and the Department would be 

better served if the attorneys responsible for appropriations matters were housed in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

(OCFO), and the fiscal year 2003 Act provided funds and FTE to 

the OCFO to accommodate four attorneys transferred from the Office of General Counsel (OGC). Since that time, the Committee has 

routinely received prompt, accurate, and reliable information from 

the OCFO on various appropriations law matters. For fiscal year 

2013, the Committee continues to fund appropriations attorneys in 

the OCFO and directs HUD to maintain this responsibility within 

the OCFO. 

The General Counsel, as the chief legal officer and legal voice of 

the Department, is the legal adviser to the Secretary and other 

principal staff of the Department. It is the responsibility of the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to provide legal opinions, advice 

and services with respect to all programs and activities, and to provide counsel and assistance in the development of the Department’s 

programs and policies. 

The mission of the Office of Departmental Equal Employment 

Opportunity (ODEEO) is to ensure the enforcement of Federal laws 

relating to the elimination of all forms of discrimination in the Department’s employment practices. The mission is carried out 

through the functions of three divisions: the Affirmative Employment division, the Alternative Dispute Resolution division, and the 

Equal Employment Opportunity division. 

The Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives conducts 

outreach, recommends changes to HUD policies and programs that 

present barriers to grassroots organizations, and initiates special 

projects, such as grant writing training. 

The Office of Strategic Planning and Management drives organizational, programmatic, and operational change across the Department to maximize efficiency and performance. The office will facilitate HUD’s strategic planning process by identifying the Department’s strategic priorities and transformational change initiatives, 

create and manage work plans for targeted transformation projects, 

and develop key program performance measures and targets for 

monitoring. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $518,068,000 for this account, which 

is $19,721,000 below above the level enacted in fiscal year 2012 

and $14,478,000 below the budget request. Further, the committee 

directs that the offices within this account shall have no more than 

2,197 Full Time Equivalents. The funds and allowable FTE shall 

be distributed as follows: 

Office Funding level FTE level 

Immediate Office of the Secretary ................................................................................................. $3,572,000 18 

Office of the Deputy Secretary and Chief Operating Officer ......................................................... 1,206,000 6 

Office of Hearings and Appeals ..................................................................................................... 1,711,000 10 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization .............................................................. 705,000 5 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer .............................................................................................. 47,627,000 194 

Office of the General Counsel ........................................................................................................ 95,102,000 629 

Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations ............................................................ 2,400,000 17

Office of Public Affairs ................................................................................................................... 3,502,000 25 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer .................................................................................... 247,535,000 475 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

Office Funding level FTE level 

Office of Field Policy and Management ......................................................................................... 47,500,000 342 

Office of the Chief Procurement Officer ......................................................................................... 16,563,000 121 

Office of the Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity .......................................................... 3,127,000 20 

Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives ....................................................................... 1,404,000 8 

Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities .......................................................................... 2,360,000 17 

Office of Strategic Planning and Management ............................................................................. 4,884,000 30 

Office of the Chief Information Officer .......................................................................................... 38,870,000 280 

Further, the Secretary must provide quarterly status updates to 

the Committees regarding pending congressional reports. The bill 

also provides that no more than $25,000 provided under the immediate Office of the Secretary shall be available for the official reception and representation expenses as the Secretary may determine. 

In addition, the bill includes a provision requiring the Department 

to notify the Committees on Appropriations one month in advance 

of any international travel. 

PERSONNEL COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $200,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 211,634,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 206,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +6,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥5,134,000 

The Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) oversees the administration of HUD’s Public Housing, Housing Choice Voucher, 

and Native American Programs. PIH is responsible for administering and managing programs authorized and funded by Congress under the basic provisions of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $206,500,000 for this account, which 

is $6,500,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2012, and 

$5,134,000 below the fiscal year 2013 budget request. The Committee directs that PIH shall have no more than 1,527 FTE. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $100,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 103,882,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 103,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +3,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥382,000 

The Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) assists in developing viable communities by promoting integrated approaches that provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities for low and moderateincome persons. The primary means toward this end is the development of partnerships among all levels of government and the private sector, including for-profit and nonprofit organizations. This 

Office is responsible for the effective administration of Community 

Development Block Grants (CDBG), Home Investment Partnership 

(HOME), Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI), 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), Homeless 

Assistance Grants and other HUD community development programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $103,500,000 for this account, which 

is $3,500,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2012, and 

$332,000 below the budget request. The Committee directs that 

CPD shall have no more than 810 FTE. 

Office of Sustainable Communities.—The Committee provides 

$2,360,000 for the Office of Sustainable Communities for the following limited purposes: to continue overseeing and providing technical assistance to previous grantees that received fiscal year 2010 

and 2011 funds; to continue coordinating with other federal agencies to remove unnecessary federal barriers to local development 

projects; and to continue identifying ‘‘sustainability’’ best practices 

within the Department’s existing programs. 

The Committee, however, does not include funding for additional 

grants and, accordingly, does not include funding for another grant 

competition or additional oversight. Instead, the Committee directs 

the Department to undertake the following activities, which are 

achievable with the resources provided and within the appropriate 

scope of this office, as defined in the previous paragraph: 

1. Evaluate the results of the first two pilot programs, including 

identifying best practices and lessons learned. Such evaluation 

shall include, to the greatest possible extent, cost-benefit analysis 

for each grantee’s activities, including cost-savings and efficiencies 

realized by particular activities. 

2. Determine how best to export such best practices and lessons 

learned to all communities interested in undertaking such efforts 

using their own funds (including federal funds over which communities have control). These methods shall not involve the provision 

of additional federal grant funds, nor any unauthorized mandates 

or funding conditions imposed by the Department. Rather, they 

shall reflect cost-free or minimal-cost methods of sharing with all 

communities the knowledge gained by the Department from the 

two previous taxpayer-funded pilots. Such methods might include 

a website, educational materials, toolkits, etc. 

3. Develop a toolkit to enable localities to pool resources and undertake holistic community development and planning activities, if 

they so choose. Such a toolkit might include, for example, lessons 

learned from prior grantees, case studies, model plans, sample 

legal documents such as ‘‘memoranda of understanding’’ to enable 

the joint pooling of resources and joint planning efforts, sample cost 

estimates, checklists of various parties to be consulted and the various cost-saving activities and development efficiencies to be considered, etc. 

The Committee includes additional views on the Administration’s 

proposal for Sustainable Communities within the Community Development Fund report section. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

HOUSING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $391,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 398,832,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 396,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +5,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥2,332,000 

The Office of Housing implements programmatic, regulatory, financial, and operational responsibilities under the leadership of six 

deputy assistant secretaries and the field staff for activities related 

to Federal Housing Administration (FHA) multifamily and single 

family homeownership programs, and assisted rental housing programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $396,500,000 for this account, which 

is $5,000,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2012, and 

$2,332,000 below the budget request. The Committee directs that 

the Office of Housing shall have no more than 3,167 FTE. Further, 

the Committee directs that the Program Support Division shall 

have no more than 60 FTE and the newly formed Office of Housing 

Counseling shall have no more than 67 FTE. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $22,211,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 21,394,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 22,326,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +115,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ +932,000 

The Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) directs 

the Department’s annual research agenda to support the research 

and evaluation of housing and other departmental initiatives to improve HUD’s effectiveness and operational efficiencies. Research 

proposals are determined through consultation with senior staff 

from each HUD program office, the Office of Management and 

Budget, the Congress, as well as discussions with key HUD stakeholders. The office addresses all inquiries regarding key housing 

economic information such as the American Housing Survey, Fair 

Market Rents, Median Family Income Limits, annual housing goals 

and oversight of the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Real Estate Settlement Procedures 

Act, and mortgage market analyses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $22,326,000 for this account, which 

is $115,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2012 and 

$932,000 above the budget request. The Committee directs that 

PD&R shall have no more than 151 FTE. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $72,600,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 74,296,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 72,904,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +304,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥1,392,000 

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) is responsible for developing policies and guidance, and for providing 

technical support for enforcement of the Fair Housing Act and the 

civil rights statutes. FHEO serves as the central point for the formulation, clearance and dissemination of policies, intra-departmental clearances, and public information related to fair housing 

issues. FHEO receives, investigates, conciliates and recommends 

the issuance of charges of discrimination and determinations of 

non-compliance for complaints filed under Title VIII and other civil 

rights authorities. Additionally, FHEO conducts civil rights compliance reviews and compliance reviews under Section 3. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $72,904,000 for this account, which 

is $304,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2012 and 

$1,392,000 below the budget request. The Committee directs that 

the FHEO shall have no more than 581 FTE. 

OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $7,400,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 6,816,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 6,816,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥584,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control 

(OHHLHC) is directly responsible for the administration of the 

Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction program authorized by Title X 

of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The office also addresses multiple housing-related hazards affecting the 

health of residents, particularly children. The office develops leadbased paint regulations, guidelines, and policies applicable to HUD 

programs, and enforces the Lead Disclosure Rule issued under 

Title X. For both lead-based paint and healthy homes issues, the 

office designs and administers programs for grants, training, research, education and information dissemination, and serves as the 

Department’s central information source for the Secretary, the Congress, HUD staff, HUD grantees, state and local governments and 

the public. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,816,000 for this account, which is 

$584,000 below the level enacted in fiscal year 2012 and the same 

as the budget request. The Committee directs that OHHLHC shall 

have no more than 58 FTE. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $18,914,369,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 19,074,283,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 19,134,283,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. 219,914,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ 60,000,000 

In fiscal year 2005, the Housing Certificate Fund was separated 

into two new accounts: Tenant-Based Rental Assistance and 

Project-Based Rental Assistance. This account administers the tenant-based Section 8 rental assistance program otherwise known as 

the Housing Choice Voucher program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $19,134,283,000 for tenant-based 

rental assistance, which is $60,000,000 above the budget request 

and $219,914,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Consistent with the budget request, the Committee continues the advance of $4,000,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading for Section 8 programs to October 1, 2012. 

Voucher Renewals.—The Committee provides $17,237,948,000 for 

the renewal of tenant-based vouchers. This level is the same as the 

budget request and a decrease of $4,403,000 from the fiscal year 

2012 enacted level. The Department is instructed to monitor and 

report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations each 

quarter on the trends in Section 8 subsidies and to report on the 

required program alterations due to changes in rent or changes in 

tenant income. 

Tenant protection.—The Committee provides $75,000,000 for tenant protection vouchers, which is equal to the budget request and 

the same as the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

Administrative Fees.—The Committee provides $1,575,000,000 

for allocations to PHAs to conduct activities associated with placing 

and maintaining individuals under Section 8 assistance. This 

amount is equal to the budget request and $225,000,000 above the 

fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinators.—The Committee provides 

$60,000,000 to support the Family Self-Sufficiency program, which 

helps section 8 residents find employment and increase their earnings. The budget request proposed funding this program as a separate account and opening the program up to participants outside 

the Housing Choice Voucher program. HUD has not demonstrated 

that this change would improve the effectiveness of the program or 

provide additional opportunities for employment and economic selfsufficiency. 

Mainstream Voucher Renewals.—The Committee provides 

$111,335,000 to renew expiring Section 811 tenant-based subsidies. 

This level is equal to the budget request and $683,000 below the 

fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The Committee directs HUD to issue 

guidance to the housing agencies administering these vouchers to 

continue to serve people with disabilities upon turnover. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing.—The Committee provides 

$75,000,000 for incremental voucher assistance through the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program. This funding 

level is equal to the budget request and the same as the level provided in fiscal year 2012. This program is administered in conjunction with the Department of Veterans Affairs. These vouchers shall 

remain available for homeless veterans upon turnover. This funding will add 10,000 new vouchers for this program, and will support the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) goal of ending homelessness among veterans within five years. The Committee directs 

HUD to report on VASH utilization rates, challenges encountered 

in the program, and increases in veteran self-sufficiency by March 

1, 2013. 

The Committee continues in bill language the direction to the 

Department to communicate to each PHA, within 60 days of enactment, the fixed amount that will be made available to each PHA 

for fiscal year 2013. The amount provided in this account is the 

only source of federal funds that may be used to renew tenantbased vouchers. The amounts appropriated here may not be augmented from any other source. 

Section 8 Reforms.—The budget request includes a number of 

new authorizing provisions intended to reform the Housing Choice 

Voucher program, including several provisions that result in costsaving measures that provide administrative relief to PHAs. The 

Committee commends the administration for proposing these reforms, particularly given the increasing costs of the HCV renewals 

each year. These rising costs have crowded out other HUD programs that address key priorities of community development, home 

ownership, and homelessness. While the Committee is fully supportive of many of these reform proposals, it does not include these 

new authorizing provisions in this bill. The Committee urges the 

authorizing committee to address these reforms expeditiously, as a 

failure to reform this program could result in either a significant 

cut to the number of leased vouchers, or deep cuts to other HUD 

programs. The Committee urges the administration to continue to 

work with the authorizing committees on a reform bill, with the 

goal of enactment prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2013. 

The Committee also encourages HUD to pursue regulatory and 

administrative reforms that do not require new authorizations, but 

that relieve the administrative burdens on PHAs. 

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(RESCISSION)

The Housing Certificate Fund, until fiscal year 2005, provided 

funding for both the project-based and tenant-based components of 

the Section 8 program. Project-Based Rental Assistance and Tenant-Based Rental Assistance are now separately funded accounts. 

The Housing Certificate Fund retains balances from previous years’ 

appropriations. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Language is included to allow unobligated balances from specific 

accounts may be used to renew or amend Project-Based Rental Assistance contracts. 

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $1,875,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 2,070,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,985,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. 110,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥85,000,000 

The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for public 

housing capital programs, including public housing development 

and modernization. Examples of capital modernization projects include replacing roofs and windows, improving common spaces, upgrading electrical and plumbing systems, and renovating the interior of an apartment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,985,000,000 for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is $85,000,000 below the budget request 

and $110,000,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

Within the amounts provided the Committee directs that: 

—No more than $15,345,000 is directed to support the ongoing 

Public Housing Financial and Physical Assessment activities of 

the Real Estate Assessment Center; and 

—$20,000,000 is made available for Emergency Capital needs, 

excluding Presidentially declared disasters. The Committee 

continues to include language to ensure that funds are used 

only for repairs needed due to an unforeseen and unanticipated 

emergency event or natural disaster that occurs during fiscal 

year 2012; 

—$5,000,000 is directed to the support of administrative and judicial receiverships. The Committee directs that the Department continue to report to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations quarterly on the progress made at each 

agency under receivership. 

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $3,961,850,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 4,524,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,524,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. 562,150,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The Public Housing Operating Fund subsidizes the costs associated with operating and maintaining public housing. This subsidy 

supplements funding received by public housing authorities (PHA) 

from tenant rent contributions and other income. In accordance 

with section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, funds are allocated by formula to public housing authorities for 

the following purposes: utility costs; anti-crime and anti-drug activities, including the costs of providing adequate security; routine 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

maintenance cost; administrative costs; and general operating expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,524,000,000 for the federal share 

of PHA operating expenses. This amount is equal to the budget request and $562,150,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

The Committee does not include language in the budget request 

that would allow PHAs to entirely merge their Capital and Operating Funds and use those funds for either purpose. While the 

Committee supports the idea of giving PHAs flexibility so they can 

operate more efficiently, HUD has provided no information on how 

it would identify and budget for capital and operating needs in the 

future if this authority to merge funds were approved. The Committee would consider a proposal to provide greater flexibility to 

PHAs in future years if HUD provides adequate assurances that it 

would be able to accurately assess PHAs’ operating and capital 

needs, and accurately identify actual expenditures for each of these 

activities over time. 

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $120,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 150,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥120,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥150,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no funding for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. This program remains unauthorized, and the 

Committee urges the Administration to work with the authorizing 

committees prior to requesting new programs in the budget request. The Committee believes that many of the objectives of the 

Choice Neighborhood Initiative, including affordable housing and 

community development, can be achieved through existing programs at HUD, such as Community Development Block Grants and 

the HOME program. The Committee notes that it has provided 

funding for these two programs at above the budget request and 

above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $0 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 60,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥60,000,000 

The budget request proposes to create a consolidated program to 

help HUD-assisted residents achieve economic independence, rather than continue separate programs for Housing Choice Voucher 

and Project Based families. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not include funding for this new, consolidated program, but instead continues to provide $60,000,000 for 

Family Self-Sufficiency coordinators in the Tenant Based Rental 

Assistance account, consistent with prior year appropriations Acts. 

The budget request did not provide adequate justification for this 

program change, as it merely reiterated the mission and success of 

the existing program under Tenant Based Rental Assistance. 

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $650,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 650,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 650,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The Native American Housing Block Grants program, authorized 

by the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4111 et seq.), provides funds to American Indian tribes and their Tribally Designated Housing Entities 

(TDHEs) to address affordable housing needs within their communities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $650,000,000 for Native American 

Housing Block Grants, which is the same as fiscal year 2012 and 

the budget request. Of the amounts made available under this 

heading: 

—$2,000,000 is for Title VI loan guarantees up to $18,332,000. 

—$2,000,000 is for national or regional organizations representing 

Native American housing interests to provide training and 

technical assistance to Indian housing authorities and TDHEs. 

The Committee agrees with the President’s budget request 

that no specific funds should be set aside for the National 

American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC), as NAIHC has 

significant carryover and other Indian organizations are interested in and capable of providing these services. 

HUD Inspection, Technical Assistance, and Training.—The Committee does not provide additional funding for the Department to 

administer inspections, technical assistance, and training because 

the Department has five fiscal years’ worth of this funding in carryover balances ($10,000,000). Given the enormous need in Indian 

country for technical assistance and training, the Committee is appalled that such funds are not being used and recommends no additional funding until the Department spends down existing funds. 

The Committee is advised that the Department plans to change 

the way in which these funds are used—namely, by initiating a 

competition for organizations and contractors with experience in 

Indian housing to provide these services. The Committee approves 

this effort to improve the timely use of these funds and directs the 

Department to begin such competition as soon as possible. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

Timely Expenditure of Funds.—The Committee continues language requiring fiscal year 2013 funds to be spent within 10 years. 

The Committee reiterates its concern that some tribes carry 

enormous backlogs of unspent block grant funds. Unexpended balances of this proportion call into question the need for any additional appropriations in this account, which unfortunately impacts 

all tribes. The Committee is aware that some tribes spend all of 

their funds in a given year and could use additional grant funding 

to house tribal members immediately. Some tribes even take out 

loans, with interest paid for by the tribe, to bridge-finance 

NAHASDA projects in between appropriations cycles. 

The Committee therefore strongly urges tribes to consider adopting a method by which unexpended funds may be redistributed for 

timely use in the upcoming NAHASDA reauthorization negotiations. There are many ways to structure such a redistribution, so 

that overall funds are spent down (thereby demonstrating a need 

to increase the overall account) while not penalizing a tribe’s future 

allocations. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $13,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 13,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥13,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥13,000,000 

The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program provides 

grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home 

Lands for housing and housing-related assistance to develop, maintain and operate affordable housing for eligible low-income native 

Hawaiian families. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend funding for this program, 

which is $13,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the budget request. This program is not authorized. 

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Credit subsidy: Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ....................................................................................... $6,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 .................................................................................... 7,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................................................ 6,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ....................................................................................... 0 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 .................................................................................... ¥1,000,000 

Limitation on guaranteed loans: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ....................................................................................... 360,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 .................................................................................... 900,000,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................................................ 633,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ....................................................................................... 273,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 .................................................................................... ¥267,000,000 

Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1992 establishes a loan guarantee program for Native American individuals and housing authorities to build new housing or purchase 

existing housing on trust land. This program provides access to priVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

vate financing that otherwise might be unavailable because of the 

unique legal status of Indian trust land. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 in new credit subsidy for 

the Section 184 loan guarantee program, which is the same as fiscal year 2012 and $1,000,000 below the budget request, to guarantee a total loan volume of $360,000,000, which is $273,000,000 

above fiscal year 2012 and $267,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee includes language allowing the Secretary to increase loan guarantee fees, which will dramatically increase the 

supported loan volume. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Program account: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ....................................................................................... $386,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 .................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................................................ – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ....................................................................................... ¥386,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 .................................................................................... ¥1,000,000 

The Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund provides 

loan guarantees for native Hawaiian individuals and their families, 

the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Office of Hawaiian 

Affairs, and nonprofit organizations experienced in planning and 

developing affordable housing for native Hawaiians. Loaned funds 

may be used to purchase, construct, and/or rehabilitate single-family homes on Hawaiian Home Lands. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

budget request. This program is not authorized. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $332,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 330,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 330,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥2,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program is authorized by the AIDS Housing Opportunities Act (42 

U.S.C. 12901 et seq.). This program provides states and localities 

with resources to address the housing needs of low-income persons 

living with HIV/AIDS. Providing housing stability for this population facilitates necessary medical treatment and is cost-effective. 

Ninety percent of funding is distributed by formula to qualifying 

states and metropolitan areas based on the cumulative incidences 

of AIDS reported to the Centers for Disease Control. The remaining 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

10 percent of funding is distributed by HUD through a national 

competition. Government recipients are required to have a HUDapproved Comprehensive Plan or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $330,000,000, which is $2,000,000 

below fiscal year 2012 and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee includes language requiring the Secretary to continue renewing eligible, expiring HOPWA contracts that were previously funded under the national competition, before awarding 

new competitive grants. 

The Committee includes language requiring the Department to 

notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $3,308,090,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 3,143,090,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,404,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. 95,910,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ 260,910,000 

The Community Development Fund, authorized by the Housing 

and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), 

provides funding, primarily through Community Development 

Block Grants, to state and local governments and other eligible entities to carry out community and economic development activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $3,404,000,000 for the 

Community Development Fund account, which is the $95,910,000 

above fiscal year 2012 and $260,910,000 above the budget request. 

Of the amounts made available: 

—$3,344,000,000 is for the Community Development Block Grants 

(‘‘CDBG’’) formula program for entitlement communities and 

states. This is $396,000,000 above both fiscal year 2012 and 

the budget request; 

—$60,000,000 is for the Native American Housing and Economic 

Development Block Grant (also known as ‘‘Indian CDBG’’), 

which is the same as fiscal year 2012 and the budget request; 

and 

—$7,000,000, of the amount provided for the regular CDBG formula program, is for insular areas, per 42 U.S.C. 5306(a)(2), 

which is the same as fiscal year 2012 and the budget request. 

The Committee includes language requiring the Department to 

notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

Matching Funds.—The Committee notes localities often use 

CDBG to serve as the ‘‘local match’’ for many other federal programs. The point of a local match requirement is to have recipients 

of federal funding at least ‘‘put some skin the game’’ in exchange 

for large amounts of federal assistance. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

The Committee directs the Department to provide to the Committees on Appropriations, within 180 days of enactment, a detailed analysis of how much CDBG funding has been used by 

grantees as matching dollars for other federal programs over the 

last several fiscal years. The report should detail the percentage of 

CDBG funds used to match other federal programs; which federal 

programs are being matched; the local match requirements of such 

federal programs; what portion of the local match requirements are 

being met using CDBG, by federal program; and what legal authority allows the use of CDBG as a local match, by federal program. 

Sustainable Communities.—The Committee declines to set-aside 

any CDBG funds for Sustainable Communities grants, consistent 

with the fact that there is no authorization for this program and 

that the committee of jurisdiction does not want this unauthorized 

program funded. The House Financial Services Committee noted in 

its Views and Estimates on the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget: 

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

This language was adopted with unanimous and bipartisan 

agreement. 

The House Committee on Appropriations fully agrees. While the 

Committee recommends a higher amount for CDBG than past 

years, it is still well below the fiscal year 2010 level of 

$3,990,068,000, as observed in the House Financial Services Committee’s budget views. Additionally, the Committee notes Congress 

does not yet have sufficient information to assess whether the prior 

grants have been successful and should be continued. The Committee includes language in the Management and Administration 

portion of this report that directs data collection and analysis to enable such an assessment. 

Further, the Committee reiterates its concerns from last year 

that this proposed grant program is unauthorized, with amorphous 

goals that are entirely subjective. If the Department agrees that 

community development goals are local in nature, then should not 

localities be solely responsible for determining these goals? The 

Committee does not agree with HUD’s proposal that bureaucrats 

with unfettered discretion should make value judgments (with no 

meaningful parameters or other basis in law) on which few communities deserve such funds. The Committee instead provides all communities with higher CDBG allocations, so all communities can decide how best to undertake local development. 

To the extent the Department wishes to educate all communities 

on the best practices and efficiencies learned by the Department 

over the years and to equip all communities with the tools necessary to undertake holistic and/or regional development activities, 

then the Committee provides sufficient resources within the Office 

of Sustainable Communities to do this (as well as to continue overseeing prior grantees). 

The Committee strongly urges the Department to include in such 

best practices a focus on how integrating housing and transporVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

tation options can meet the special safety needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Credit subsidy: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ....................................................................................... $5,952,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 .................................................................................... 0 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................................................ 6,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ....................................................................................... +48,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 .................................................................................... +6,000,000 

Limitation on guaranteed loans: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ....................................................................................... 240,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 .................................................................................... 500,000,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................................................ 244,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ....................................................................................... +4,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 .................................................................................... ¥256,000,000 

The Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program is a source of variable 

and fixed-rate financing for communities undertaking projects eligible under the Community Development and Block Grant (CDBG) 

program. Such activities may include economic development, housing rehabilitation, public facilities, and large-scale physical development projects. By pledging their current and future CDBG allocations to cover the loan amount as security, communities are able 

to finance large-scale projects with a federally guaranteed loan. 

HUD may require additional security for a loan, as determined on 

a case-by-case basis. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Section 108 loan 

guarantee program, which is $48,000 above fiscal year 2012 and 

$6,000,000 above the budget request, to guarantee a new loan volume of $244,000,000. 

Subsidy Carryover.—With carryover balances in this account, the 

total loan volume in fiscal year 2013 may be up to $319,000,000. 

The Committee notes this is more than adequate, based on recent 

program demand. In fiscal years 2010 and 2011, loans were guaranteed in amounts of $278,000,000 and $290,000,000, respectively. 

Proposed Fee.—The Committee declines to enact the President’s 

proposed new fee structure for Section 108 borrowers. The proposed 

fee would increase the capital costs of assisted development 

projects, which would decrease the ability of local governments to 

use the Section 108 guarantee to finance development in distressed 

areas and areas of low capital investment. 

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $1,000,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 1,000,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,200,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. 200,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ 200,000,000 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

The HOME investment partnerships program provides block 

grants to participating jurisdictions (states, units of local government, Indian tribes, and insular areas) to undertake activities that 

expand the supply of affordable housing in the jurisdiction. HOME 

block grants are distributed based on formula allocations. Upon receipt of these Federal funds, state and local governments develop 

a housing affordability strategy to acquire, rehabilitate, or construct new affordable housing, or to provide rental assistance to eligible families. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,200,000,000 for activities funded 

under this account, which is $200,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 

and the budget request. 

The Committee continues language to prevent approximately 52 

new participating jurisdictions from being permanently added to 

the HOME program. It does not make sense to permanently increase the number of participating jurisdictions, when overall 

HOME funding has been significantly decreased in recent years. 

The Committee continues language providing much-needed reforms to the HOME program. The Department is finalizing similar 

regulations. 

In the general provisions of Title II, the Committee includes language making reforms requested by the Department. 

The Committee continues language requiring the Department to 

notify grantees of their formula allocation within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $53,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 60,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. 6,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ 60,000,000 

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) funds 

are distributed through competitive grants to national and regional 

nonprofit organizations and consortia that have experience in providing or facilitating self-help homeownership opportunities. Grant 

funds are used for land acquisition and infrastructure improvements associated with developing new decent, safe, and sanitary 

non-luxury dwellings for low-income persons using the self-help 

model. 

Additionally, Section 4 Capacity Building funds are set-aside 

within this account for activities described under section 4(a) of the 

HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 9816 note). Section 4 

funds are awarded competitively to a limited number of non-profits, 

which use the funds to develop the capacity of community development corporations (CDCs) and community housing development organizations (CHDOs). The CDCs and CHDOs then undertake community development and affordable housing activities. Section 4 

funds must be matched by recipients with at least three times the 

grant amount in private funding. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for the Self Help Homeownership Opportunity Program account, which is $6,500,000 

above fiscal year 2012 and $60,000,000 above the budget request. 

The President’s budget proposed eliminating SHOP altogether and 

proposed $35,000,000 for Section 4 Capacity Building activities as 

a set-aside within the Community Development Fund (CDF). 

Of the total amount, the Committee recommends: 

—$20,000,000 for the SHOP program, which is $6,500,000 above 

fiscal year 2012 and $20,000,000 above the budget request; 

—$35,000,000 for the Section 4 Capacity Building program, of 

which at least $5,000,000 is for rural capacity building activities. This is the same as fiscal year 2012 and the budget request (though the budget request funded Section 4 within 

CDF); and 

—$5,000,000 for rural capacity building activities by national organizations with expertise in rural housing development, which 

is the same as fiscal year 2012 and $5,000,000 above the budget request. 

Proposed elimination of SHOP.—The Administration once again 

proposes to eliminate all funding for the SHOP program, citing the 

HOME program as an acceptable substitute funding source and citing the rising administrative costs of SHOP recipients. 

Regarding the first point, the Committee notes there are many 

differences between the SHOP program, which allows non-profits to 

create affordable housing through the unique ‘‘self-help’’ model of 

homeownership, and the HOME program, which provides funding 

to states and local governments to increase the stock of affordable 

housing. There are several reasons why the Committee declines to 

eliminate SHOP: HOME funding has decreased significantly in recent years; the self-help and sweat-equity model enjoys broad Congressional support; and SHOP funding is much-needed in rural 

areas, where state-wide HOME funds are scarce and often set-aside 

for large tax-credit developments, rather than for self-help homeownership. 

Regarding rising administrative costs, the Committee directs 

HUD to evaluate the history of administrative costs in the SHOP 

program, including whether HUD’s imposition of various requirements, such as mandatory site visits and Energy-Star certifications, has resulted in SHOP grantees requiring higher administrative costs. The Committee directs the Secretary to report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 days 

of enactment on whether current administrative costs are reasonable, what portion of administrative costs are attributable to HUD 

requirements, and what actions can be taken by both HUD and 

grantees to reduce the administrative burden in this program. 

Prohibition on Demand-Response Initiative.—The Committee includes language prohibiting the Department from continuing its 

‘‘demand-response’’ (or ‘‘place-based’’) initiative using Section 4 

funds. In doing so, nearly $20,000,000 in funds provided between 

fiscal years 2010 through 2012 will be freed-up from the Department’s control and given back to Section 4 grantees, to be used on 

capacity building activities. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
91 

Since fiscal year 2010, the Department has awarded points in the 

Section 4 grant competition to applicants that agree to set-aside up 

to 15% of funds for activities to be determined by HUD. While this 

may have begun with good intentions, HUD has failed over three 

fiscal years to direct how these funds should be used, thereby causing delays and holding up nearly $20,000,000. It is clear to the 

Committee that HUD has no idea how it intends these funds to be 

spent, including, for example, which entities will be assisted by 

these funds, how the match requirement of the Section 4 program 

might be impacted, or how the geographical and expertise differences of grantees will influence project assignments. 

This amount of delay and unpreparedness by HUD is inexcusable 

and particularly ironic, given HUD is the one that initiated this effort based on a supposed need to respond to demand. If the Department insists on implementing a new, unauthorized initiative that 

essentially rewrites the way in which grant funds may be used, 

then HUD should at least have a plan ready to do it. 

Equally inexcusable is the fact that HUD never included this initiative—which siphons off grantee resources in an effort to support 

the Department’s OneCPD initiative—in any of its operating plans, 

budgets, budget justifications, or any other documents describing 

OneCPD or the Transformation Initiative to Congress. In the future, the Committee directs HUD to include this and any similar 

ideas in its budgets, budget justifications, and operating plans to 

Congress, prior to undertaking such activities. 

Finally, the Committee notes there is nothing wrong with encouraging Section 4 recipients to work in under-served areas, but 

this goal can be accomplished without HUD taking control of and 

holding hostage grantee funds. As a case in point, HUD already encouraged Section 4 grantees to work in underserved areas prior to 

fiscal year 2010 (and thereafter) by awarding points based on applicants’ plans to do such work. This is a far better, less coercive way 

for HUD to encourage serving disadvantaged areas. 

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $1,901,190,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 2,231,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,000,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. 98,810,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥231,000,000 

The Homeless Assistance Grants account provides funding for 

the homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney Act, as 

amended by the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009. 

The HEARTH Act streamlined several former homeless assistance grants into three programs: (1) the Continuum of Care (CoC) 

Grant program, which competitively funds new projects and renewed projects which were previously funded under three grant 

programs: the old supportive housing, shelter plus care, and Section 8 moderate rehabilitation single room occupancy programs; (2) 

the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) program, which distributes 

funding by formula to states, localities, and insular areas, to fund 

traditional shelter and outreach activities (as under the old emerVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

gency solutions grant program) and new prevention and re-housing 

activities, as authorized by the HEARTH Act; and (3) the Rural 

Housing Stability Grants program, which funds activities similar to 

those funded by the old rural homelessness grant program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends funding the homeless grant assistance programs at $2,000,000,000, which is $98,810,000 above fiscal 

year 2012 and $231,000,000 below the budget request. Of the total 

amount provided, the Committee recommends: 

—$286,000,000 for Emergency Solution Grants (ESG), which is 

$36,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and the same as the budget 

request; 

—$1,650,000,000 minimum for Continuum of Care Grants (CoC) 

and the Rural Housing Stability Grants, which is $57,000,000 

above fiscal year 2012 and $287,000,000 below the budget request; 

—$6,000,000 for the National Homeless Data Analysis Project, 

which is the $1,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $2,000,000 

below the budget request; and 

—$58,000,000 in additional homeless grant funds that the Department may direct toward Emergency Solution Grants, Continuum of Care Grants, or the Rural Housing Stability Grants. 

However, the Department shall not direct such funds toward 

the National Homeless Data Analysis Project or to new 

projects under the Continuum of Care. 

Despite the tough budget environment, Congress has increased 

or held steady homeless grant funding in recent years. This year, 

the Committee recommends an increase of $98,810,000. 

HEARTH Act Implementation.—The Committee supports the Department’s work to address homelessness and to implement the 

HEARTH Act as much reasonably possible, given fiscal constraints. 

As written, the HEARTH Act would require $4,400,000,000 each 

fiscal year to implement while remaining internally consistent. 

Such cost is unreasonable in this fiscal environment. This Committee will not fund everything envisioned in HEARTH, just as 

Congress frequently does not fully fund all ideas envisioned in authorizing bills. The Committee looks forward to working with the 

Department to make sure the most important parts of HEARTH 

are funded, given fiscal realities. 

The Committee notes it has been over 3 years since HEARTH 

was signed into law, and still there are no regulations for the Continuum of Care program. The HEARTH Act required the Secretary 

to promulgate regulations for all programs created or modified by 

the Act within 12 months of the date of enactment, which was May 

20, 2010. The Committee directs the Department to finalize such 

regulations as soon as possible. 

Emergency Solutions Grants.—The Committee recommends increasing Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) to $286,000,000. The 

ESG program, authorized by subtitle B of the HEARTH Act, provides funding for homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing efforts, in addition to traditional emergency shelter and outreach activities. Because of the ESG’s innovative focus on preventing and 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

solving homelessness, rather than simply managing it, the Committee strongly supports this program. 

The Committee also continues bill language that makes clear the 

ESG program should not receive less than the appropriated 

amount, notwithstanding any other provision of law, including the 

renewals certification provision in subtitle B of the HEARTH Act. 

Continuum of Care Grants.—The Committee is concerned about 

the so-called ‘‘renewal burden’’ in the Continuum-of-Care program. 

This number is exploding in growth—in the hundreds of millions 

each year—and is completely unsustainable. Further, it has and 

will continue to crowd-out other homeless funding including the 

Rural Housing Stability Grants and the Emergency Solutions 

Grants. 

The Continuum of Care is supposed to be a competitive grants 

program. However, a ‘‘renewal burden’’ is antithetical to the concept of competition. Competition for scarce resources is what drives 

better performance and spurs innovation. Automatic renewals are 

just the opposite—creating inefficiencies and removing all incentives to perform better. 

To-date, the Department seems uninterested in re-evaluating 

programs to ensure the best use of resources through a national 

competition. Instead, its approach is to simply renew all existing 

grantees and to request even more funding so that additional localities may be permanently added to the program, without regard to 

their subsequent performance. This is precisely what gives government-run programs a bad name. It is not the Committee’s intention 

to maintain an entitlement program for ailing and inflexible service 

providers. The Committee reminds providers in the Continuum of 

Care that these funds are intended to assist and house the homeless as effectively and as efficiently as possible. 

The Committee is aware the Department is considering ways in 

which localities can be encouraged to choose better projects through 

a local competitive process. This is a step in the right direction, but 

mere encouragement will not solve the problem of exploding costs 

on a national scale. The Committee directs the Department to report to the Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment on how the Continuum of Care can be run more like a true 

competition—on both the national and local level—assuming scarce 

resources. 

The Committee does not view the Department’s ‘‘renewal’’ estimate as something that must be funded each year. The Committee 

recommends less than the renewal number this year, and yet the 

overall appropriation increases by nearly $100,000,000 over fiscal 

year 2012. The Committee notes the HEARTH Act does not expressly require funding renewals. While the Secretary is permitted 

to prioritize funding of renewals and has great latitude to fund renewals, this is only to the extent sufficient funding is available. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $9,339,672,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 8,700,400,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,700,400,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥639,672,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The Project-Based Rental Assistance account (PBRA) provides a 

rental subsidy to a private landlord tied to a specific housing unit 

so that the properties themselves, rather than the individual living 

in the unit, remain subsidized. Amounts provided in this account 

include funding for the renewal of expiring project-based contracts, 

including Section 8, moderate rehabilitation, and single room occupancy (SRO) contracts, amendments to Section 8 project-based contracts, and administrative costs for performance-based, projectbased Section 8 contract administrators and costs associated with 

administering moderate rehabilitation and single room occupancy 

contracts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides a total of $8,700,400,000 for the annual 

renewal of project-based contracts, of which not less than 

$260,000,000 is for the cost of contract administrators. This funding level is $639,672,000 below the enacted level for fiscal year 

2012 and the same as the budget request. 

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $374,627,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 475,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 425,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +50,373,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥50,000,000 

The Housing for the Elderly (Section 202) program provides eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital grants to finance 

the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of housing intended 

for low income elderly people. In addition, the program provides 

project-based rental assistance contracts (PRAC) to support operational costs for units constructed under the program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $425,000,000, which is $50,373,000 

above the level enacted for fiscal year 2012 and $50,000,000 below 

the budget request. The Committee includes language allowing 

HUD to recoup residual receipts. These funds have accumulated in 

situations where the subsidies and tenant rent payments provided 

have exceeded actual costs. This language will permit these funds 

to be used to provide housing assistance for seniors who are not 

currently receiving assistance instead of the funds continuing to remain unused. 

The recommendation allocates funding as follows: 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
95 

• $50,000,000 and all residual receipts collected for new 

awards of project rental assistance; • $285,000,000 for the renewal and amendment of projectbased rental assistance contracts (PRAC); • $90,000,000 for service coordinators and the continuation 

of congregate services grants. 

The Committee continues language relating to the initial contract and renewal terms for assistance provided under this heading 

and language allowing these funds to be used for inspections and 

analysis of data by HUD’s REAC program office. 

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $165,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 150,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 165,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ +15,000,000 

The Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811) program 

provides eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital 

grants to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of 

supportive housing for disabled persons and provides project-based 

rental assistance (PRAC) to support operational costs for such 

units. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $165,000,000 for Section 811 activities, the same as fiscal year 2012 enacted level, and $15,000,000 

above the budget request. The recommendation provides up to 

$96,000,000 for capital grants and PRAC and $69,000,000 for 

PRAC renewals. Renewal of mainstream vouchers is provided 

under the tenant-based rental assistance account as proposed by 

the budget request. The Committee continues language allowing 

these funds to be used for inspections and analysis of data by 

HUD’s REAC program office. 

OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $45,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 55,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 45,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥10,000,000 

Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 

authorized HUD to provide housing counseling services to homebuyers, homeowners, low and moderate income renters, and the 

homeless. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $45,000,000 funding for housing 

counseling, the same as the level enacted in fiscal year 2012 and 

$10,000,000 below the budget request. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

PAYMENT TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $6,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 8,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥2,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥4,000,000 

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 

Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 

Improvement Act of 2000, authorized the Secretary to establish 

Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 

the construction, design, and performance of manufactured homes. 

All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs of administering the Act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends up to $4,000,000 for the manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees collected 

and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund established pursuant to the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act 

of 2000. The Committee recommends no direct appropriation for 

this account. The amount recommended is $2,500,000 below the 

level enacted in fiscal year 2012 and $4,000,000 below the budget 

request. 

In addition, the Committee includes language allowing the Department to collect fees from program participants for the dispute 

resolution and installation programs. These fees are to be deposited 

into the trust fund and may be used by the Department subject to 

the overall cap placed on the account. 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation of direct 

loans 

Limitation of guaranteed loans Administrative contract 

expenses 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................... $50,000,000 $400,000,000,000 $207,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ...................................... 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 215,000,000 

Recommended in the bill .................................................. 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 215,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ................................ – – – – – – 8,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ............................. – – – – – – – – – 

The Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) mutual mortgage 

insurance program account includes the mutual mortgage insurance (MMI) and cooperative management housing insurance funds. 

This program account covers unsubsidized programs, primarily the 

single-family home mortgage program, which is the largest of all 

the FHA programs. The cooperative housing insurance program 

provides mortgages for cooperative housing projects of more than 

five units that are occupied by members of a cooperative housing 

corporation. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
97 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 

commitments in the MMI program account: $400,000,000,000 for 

loan guarantees and $50,000,000 for direct loans. The recommendation also includes $215,000,000 for administrative contract expenses, of which $71,500,000 is transferred to the Working Capital 

Fund for development and modifications to information technology 

systems that serve programs or activities under the FHA. The 

Committee continues language as requested, appropriating additional administrative expenses in certain circumstances. 

The Committee’s recommendation for administrative contract expenses is $8,000,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2012 and 

the same as the FY 2013 budget request. 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation of direct loans Limitation of guaran- teed loans 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .............................................................................. $20,000,000 $25,000,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ........................................................................... 20,000,000 25,000,000,000 

Recommended in the bill . ..................................................................................... 20,000,000 25,000,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ..................................................................... – – – – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 .................................................................. – – – – – – 

The Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) general and special 

risk insurance (GI and SRI) program account includes 17 different 

programs administered by FHA. The GI fund includes a wide variety of insurance programs for special-purpose single and multifamily loans, including loans for property improvements, manufactured housing, multifamily rental housing, condominiums, housing 

for the elderly, hospitals, group practice facilities, and nursing 

homes. The SRI fund includes insurance programs for mortgages in 

older, declining urban areas that would not be otherwise eligible 

for insurance, mortgages with interest reduction payments, and 

mortgages for experimental housing and for high-risk mortgagors 

who would not normally be eligible for mortgage insurance without 

housing counseling. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 

commitments for the general and special risk insurance program 

account as requested: $25,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and 

$20,000,000 for direct loans, which is the same as fiscal year 2012 

and the budget request 

GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation of guaranteed loans Administrative contract 

expenses 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .............................................................................. $500,000,000,000 $19,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ........................................................................... 500,000,000,000 21,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................................... 500,000,000,000 20,500,000 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
98 

Limitation of guaranteed loans Administrative contract 

expenses 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ..................................................................... – – – 1,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 .................................................................. – – – ¥500,000 

The Guarantee of Mortgage-Backed Securities Program facilitates the financing of residential mortgage loans insured or guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration, the Department of 

Veterans Affairs, and the Rural Housing Services program. The 

Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) guarantees 

the timely payment of principal and interest on securities issued by 

private service institutions such as mortgage companies, commercial banks, savings banks, and savings and loan associations that 

assemble pools of mortgages and issue securities backed by the 

pools. In turn, investment proceeds are used to finance additional 

mortgage loans. Investors include non-traditional sources of credit 

in the housing market such as pension and retirement funds, life 

insurance companies, and individuals. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation includes a $500,000,000,000 limitation on 

loan commitments for mortgage-backed securities as requested and 

$20,500,000 for the personnel costs of GNMA, to be funded by Commitment and Multiclass fees. The recommendation for personnel 

costs is $1,000,000 more than fiscal year 2012 and $500,000 below 

the budget request. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $46,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 52,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 52,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +6,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as 

amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development to undertake programs of research, evaluation, 

and reports relating to the Department’s mission and programs. 

These functions are carried out internally and through grants and 

contracts with industry, nonprofit research organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements with State and local 

governments and other Federal agencies. The research programs 

seek ways to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of 

HUD programs and to identify methods to achieve cost reductions. 

Additionally, this appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation 

and monitoring activities and to conduct housing surveys. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $52,000,000 

for this account, which is an increase of $6,000,000 over the level 

enacted in fiscal year 2012. 

The Committee commends the Department for making a greater 

investment in the Office of Policy Research and Development 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
99 

(PD&R) and giving the office a greater decision-making role in departmental management. Before proposing a new program or a 

change to an existing program, HUD should first consult with 

PD&R on any research or findings to support the proposal and the 

cost effectiveness, and the budget office to ensure the proposal fits 

in to the overall spend plan and is properly accounted for. The Department would gain a lot of credibility if more decisions and programs were more thoroughly vetted with PD&R and the budget office prior to proposals to the Congress or stakeholders. 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $70,847,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 68,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 68,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥2,847,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) is responsible for developing policies and guidance, and for providing 

technical support for enforcement of the Fair Housing Act and the 

civil rights statues. FHEO serves as the central point for the formulation, clearance and dissemination of policies, intra-departmental clearances, and public information related to fair housing 

issues. FHEO receives, investigates, conciliates and recommends 

the issuance of charges of discrimination and determinations of 

non-compliance for complaints filed under Title VIII and other civil 

rights authorities. Additionally, FHEO conducts civil rights compliance reviews and compliance reviews under Section 3. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $68,000,000 

for this account, which is $2,847,000 below the level enacted in fiscal year 2012. Of the funds provided, $300,000 is for the Limited 

English Proficiency Initiative, $1,500,000 is for the National Fair 

Housing Training Academy, and $23,700,000 is for the Fair Housing Assistance Program. Of the $42,500,000 set aside for the Fair 

Housing Initiatives Program, $29,250,000 is for private enforcement activities, $8,750,000 is for education and outreach activities, 

and $4,500,000 is for the Fair Housing Organization Initiative. 

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL AND HEALTHY HOMES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $120,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 120,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 120,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes is responsible for administering the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction 

program authorized by Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The office also addresses multiple housingrelated health hazards through the Healthy Homes Initiative, pursuant to the Secretary’s authority in sections 501 and 502 of the 

Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 (12 U.S.C. 1701z–1 

and 1701z–2). 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
100 

The office develops lead-based paint regulations, guidelines, and 

policies applicable to HUD programs and enforces the Lead Disclosure Rule issued under Title X. For both lead-related and Healthy 

Homes issues, the office designs and administers programs for 

grants, training, research, demonstration, and education. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $120,000,000 

for the lead programs, which is equal to the level enacted in fiscal 

year 2012 bill. Of the amount provided, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Healthy Homes Initiative, and not 

less than $45,000,000 for the lead hazard reduction program. 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $199,035,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 170,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 175,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥24,035,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ +5,000,000 

The Working Capital Fund was established pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 3535 to provide necessary capital for the development of, 

modifications to, and infrastructure for Department-wide information technology systems, and for the continuing operation of both 

Department-wide and program-specific information technology systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $175,000,000 in direct appropriations for the Working Capital Fund (WCF) to support Departmentwide information technology system activities, $24,035,000 less 

than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and $5,000,000 more than 

the budget request. In addition to the direct appropriation for Department-wide systems, funds are transferred from FHA. 

The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 over the 

budget request specifically for the purpose of creating a system to 

centrally account for, control, oversee, and report on full-time 

equivalents (FTE) numbers and expenses across the Department. 

The Committee is astonished that no basic system exists in the 

budget office or anywhere in the Department. To answer a simple 

FTE-related question from the Committee, the budget office is 

forced to put out a call for data to each office and no system exists 

to verify the responses. Further, the Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer does not have a reliable method for monitoring the FTE 

burn rate across each office or the Department, which explains a 

number of Anti-Deficiency Act violations in recent years. There is 

one Department, not a loose cooperative of stand-alone offices. The 

Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer are responsible for the allocation and expenditure of these funds and the 

Committee is adamant on oversight. The Committee directs HUD 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
101 

to report on this effort and outline a plan for creating such a system within the Department’s fiscal year 2013 operating plan. As for the $60,000,000 HUD requested through the Transformation Initiative for investments in both specific office and department-wide information technology (IT) systems, the Committee 

directs HUD to use its current statutory authority to establish a 

true and traditional WCF, complete with work agreements, contracts, and fund transfers to pay for IT investments. The 

$175,000,000 provided by direct appropriation should be enough to 

start the year and get the WCF and work agreements in place to 

bring in the remaining $60,000,000 by the end of the year. Instead 

of requesting transfer authority under the Transformation Initiative, the Department should make the new WCF a part of the fiscal 

year 2014 budget request, similar to the Department of Transportation. A new WCF will ensure the office or offices affected by the 

Department’s IT investments and maintenance will be active participants in the decision-making and financing of the Department’s 

systems, and more importantly, that the Chief Financial Officer 

will have direct control and oversight over those systems and decisions. The Committee views the creation of a true WCF to be a 

more sustainable protocol than the Transformation Initiative. 

The Committee has retained language that precludes the use of 

these or any other funds appropriated previously to the Working 

Capital Fund or program offices for transfer to the Working Capital 

Fund that would be used or transferred to any other entity in HUD 

or elsewhere for the purposes of implementing the Administration’s 

‘‘e-Gov’’ initiative without the Committee’s approval in HUD’s operating plan. The Committee directs that funds appropriated for specific projects and activities should not be reduced or eliminated in 

order to fund other activities inside and outside of HUD without 

the expressed approval of the Committee. HUD is not to contribute 

or participate in activities that are specifically precluded in legislation, unless the Committee agrees to a change. 

Further, the Committee retains language requiring the General 

Accountability Office (GAO) to audit and oversee HUD’s information technology programs, development and investments. While 

working with GAO, HUD has made vast improvements to its IT 

management, the Committee views GAO’s continued participation 

to be crucial to HUD’s efforts. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $124,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 125,600,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 125,600,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +1,600,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of Inspector General (IG) provides agency-wide audit 

and investigative functions to identify and correct management and 

administrative deficiencies that create conditions for existing or potential instances of waste, fraud, and mismanagement. The audit 

function provides internal audit, contract audit, and inspection 

services. Contract audits provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on accounting and financial matters relative to neVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
102 

gotiation, award, administration, re-pricing, and settlement of contracts. Internal audits evaluate all facets of agency operations. Inspection services provide detailed technical evaluations of agency 

operations. The investigative function provides for the detection 

and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $50,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 50,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ +50,000,000 

The Transformation Initiative is the Department’s effort to improve and streamline the systems and operations at HUD. Managed by the Office of Strategic Planning and Management, this initiative has three elements: (1) research, evaluation, and program 

metrics; (2) program demonstrations; (3) technical assistance and 

capacity building. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $50,000,000 for activities under the 

Transformation Initiative (TI), consistent with the fiscal year 2012 

appropriation. The budget requested authority to transfer up to 0.5 

percent from various other HUD accounts, but not to exceed 

$120,000,000 in total funds. 

The Committee finds the mass transfer to be an awkward method of funding the activities under this account and distorts the resources required and available under the various donor program 

accounts. A more transparent method is to simply appropriate 

funds for the transformation activities directly. The Committee 

again strongly urges HUD to consider incorporating a direct appropriation for TI in the fiscal year 2014 budget materials. 

Despite the decision to reject HUD’s transfer proposal, the Committee supports HUD’s efforts to reform its operations and take a 

hard look at how the Department delivers services, evaluates programs, and seeks to find better, more effective, and hopefully more 

cost efficient ways to fulfill its mission. 

The Committee retains language requiring HUD to submit a 

plan for the fiscal year 2013 funds. Committee’s recommendation 

provides funds for the following initiatives: 

• $1,000,000 for research-ready data integration; • $2,000,000 for biennial research NOFAs; • $1,000,000 for the Multidisciplinary Research Team; • $1,000,000 for the HOME affordability study; 

• $1,000,000 for emerging research issues; 

• $1,000,000 for Choice Neighborhoods evaluations; 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
103 

• $5,000,000 for the rental assistance demonstration evaluation; 

• $7,000,000 for homeless programs demonstrations; 

• $2,000,000 for the moving to work evaluation; 

• $2,000,000 for Section 811 project rental assistance demonstration evaluations; 

• $2,000,000 for the senior and services demonstration; and 

• $25,000,000 for technical assistance. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

Section 201. The Committee continues the provision that relates 

to the division of financing adjustment factors. 

Section 202. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits available funds from being used to investigate or prosecute 

lawful activities under the Fair Housing Act. 

Section 203. The Committee continues by reference the two provisions in prior appropriations Acts that correct the HOPWA formula and make other technical corrections. 

Section 204. The Committee continues language requiring funds 

appropriated to be distributed on a competitive basis in accordance 

with the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform 

Act of 1989. 

Section 205. The Committee continues language regarding the 

availability of funds subject to the Government Corporation Control 

Act and the Housing Act of 1950. 

Section 206. The Committee continues language regarding allocation of funds in excess of the budget estimates. 

Section 207. The Committee continues language regarding the 

expenditure of funds for corporations and agencies subject to the 

Government Corporation Control Act. 

Section 208. The Committee continues language requiring the 

Secretary to provide quarterly reports on uncommitted, unobligated 

and excess funds in each departmental program and activity. 

Section 209. The Committee continues the provision that requires that the Administration’s budget and the Department’s 

budget justifications for fiscal year 2014 shall be submitted in the 

identical account and sub-account structure provided in this Act. 

Section 210. The Committee continues the provision that exempts PHA Boards in Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi and the County of Los Angeles from public housing resident representation requirement. 

Section 211. The Committee continues the provision that authorizes HUD to transfer debt and use agreements from an obsolete 

project to a viable project, provided that no additional costs are incurred, and other conditions are met. 

Section 212. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the IG from changing the basis on which the audit of GNMA 

is conducted. 

Section 213. The Committee continues the provision that sets 

forth requirements for eligibility for Section 8 voucher assistance, 

and includes consideration for persons with disabilities. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
104 

Section 214. The Committee continues the provision that distributes Native American housing block grant funds to the same Native Alaskan recipients as 2005. 

Section 215. The Committee continues the provision that authorizes the Secretary to insure mortgages under Section 255 of the 

National Housing Act. 

Section 216. The Committee continues the provision that instructs HUD on managing and disposing of any multifamily property that is owned by HUD. 

Section 217. The Committee continues the provision that provides that the Secretary shall report quarterly on HUD’s use of all 

sole source contracts. 

Section 218. The Committee continues the provision that authorizes the Secretary to waive certain requirements on adjusted income for certain assisted living projects for counties in Michigan. 

Section 219. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

the recipient of a section 202 grant to establish a single-asset nonprofit entity to own the project and may lend the grant funds to 

such entity. 

Section 220. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

amounts provided under the Section 108 loan guarantee program 

may be used to guarantee notes or other obligations issued by any 

State on behalf of non-entitlement communities in the State. 

Section 221. The Committee continues the provision that instructs HUD that PHAs that own and operate 400 units or fewer 

of public housing are exempt from asset management requirements. 

Section 222. The Committee continues the provision that restricts the Secretary from imposing any requirement or guideline 

relating to asset management that restricts or limits the use of 

capital funds for central office costs, up to the limit established in 

QHWRA. 

Section 223. The Committee continues the provision that provides that no employee of the Department shall be designated as 

an allotment holder unless the CFO determines that such allotment holder has received training. 

Section 224. The Committee continues the provision that provides that funding for indemnities is limited to non-programmatic 

litigation and is restricted to the payment of attorney fees only. 

Section 225. The Committee continues language regarding Notice 

of Funding Availability (NOFA) announcements and publication. 

Section 226. The Committee continues the provision that authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 5 percent of funds appropriated 

under the heading ‘‘Administration, Operations, and Management.’’ 

Section 227. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

the Disaster Housing Assistance Programs to be considered a program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 

the purpose of income verifications and matching. 

Section 228. The Committee includes a provision regarding PHA 

salary levels. 

Section 229. The Committee includes a provision that allows critical access hospitals to be insured under section 242 of the National 

Housing Act. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
105 

Section 230. The Committee includes a new provision that allows 

the Secretary to increase loan guarantee fees under the Indian 

Housing Loan Guarantee Program. 

Section 231. The Committee includes a new provision that facilitates evictions in HOME-funded properties when necessary to ensure safety and that allows recaptured HOME technical assistance 

funding to be redistributed in the formula program. 

Section 232. The Committee includes a provision which extends 

the availability of Hope VI funds appropriated in prior years. 

Section 233. The Committee includes a new provision that requires annual, rather than quarterly, reporting by the Secretary regarding duplication of benefits in Community Development Fund 

disaster funding. 

Section 234. The Committee includes a provision that repeals the 

paragraphs under the heading ‘‘Flexible Subsidy Fund.’’ 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(106) 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES 

UNITED STATES ACCESS BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $7,400,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 7,400,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 7,400,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

The United States Access Board (Access Board) was established 

by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and is the only 

Federal Agency whose primary mission is accessibility for people 

with disabilities. The Access Board is responsible for developing 

guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Architectural Barriers Act, and the Telecommunications Act. The Access 

Board is responsible for developing standards under section 508 of 

the Rehabilitation Act for accessible electronic and information 

technology used by Federal agencies. The Access Board also enforces the Architectural Barriers Act and provides training and 

technical assistance on the guidelines and standards it develops. 

The Access Board has been given responsibilities under the Help 

America Vote Act to serve on the Election Assistance Commission’s 

Board of Advisors and Technical Guidelines Development Committee. Additionally, the Board maintains a small research program that develops technical assistance materials and provides information needed for rulemaking. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $7,400,000 for 

the operations of the Access Board, which is the same as the fiscal 

year 2012 enacted level. 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $24,100,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 26,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 25,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +900,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥1,000,000 

Established in 1961, the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is 

an independent government agency, responsible for the regulation 

of oceanborne transportation in the foreign commerce of the United 

States. FMC policy focuses on 1) maintaining an efficient and competitive international ocean transportation system; and 2) protecting the public from unlawful, unfair, and deceptive ocean transVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
107 

portation practices. The Federal Maritime Commission monitors 

ocean common carriers, marine terminal operators, conferences, 

ports, and ocean transportation intermediaries to ensure they 

maintain just and reasonable practices. Among other activities, 

FMC also maintains a trade monitoring and enforcement program, 

monitors the laws and practices of foreign governments and their 

impacts on shipping conditions in the U.S. and enforces special regulatory requirements as they apply to controlled carriers. 

The principal shipping statutes administered by the FMC are the 

Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101–41309), the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. 42301–42307), Section 19 of 

the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. 42101–42109), and Public Law 89–777 (46 U.S.C. 44101–44106). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK) 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $20,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 22,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 25,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. 4,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ 3,000,000 

The Amtrak Inspector General is expected to be an independent, 

objective unit responsible for detecting and preventing fraud, 

waste, abuse, and violations of law and for promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness at Amtrak. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for Amtrak’s Office of 

Inspector General (Amtrak OIG), which is $4,500,000 above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level and $3,000,000 above the proposed in 

the fiscal year 2013 budget. This additional funding should be used 

to review the processes and procedures Amtrak and FRA are using 

to distribute the Bridges and Tunnels Grants within Amtrak’s Capital and Debt service account. 

As in fiscal year 2012, the Committee continues to fund the Amtrak OIG as a separate entity and denies the budget’s request to 

fund the Amtrak OIG through a direct grant from the Federal Railroad Administration. 

Budget Justification.—The Committee directs the Amtrak OIG to 

submit to the Committees on Appropriations a comprehensive 

budget justification for fiscal year 2012 in similar format and substance to those submitted by other agencies of the Federal government and similar to the Amtrak OIG submission last year. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
108 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $102,400,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 102,400,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 102,400,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ – – – 

Initially established along with the Department of Transportation (DOT), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent federal 

agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation 

accident in the United States, as well as significant accidents in 

other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, marine and 

pipeline—and issuing safety recommendations aimed at preventing 

future accidents. Although it has always operated independently, 

the NTSB relied on the DOT for funding and administrative support until the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Public Law 

93–633) severed all ties between the two organizations effective 

April of 1975. 

In addition to its investigatory duties, the NTSB is responsible 

for maintaining the government’s database of civil aviation accidents and conducting special studies of transportation safety issues 

of national significance. Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international treaties, the NTSB supplies investigators to 

serve as U.S. Accredited Representatives for aviation accidents 

overseas involving U.S.-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or 

major components of U.S. manufacture. The NTSB also serves as 

the ‘court of appeals’ for any airman, mechanic or mariner whenever certificate action is taken by the Administrator of the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are assessed by the FAA. In addition, the NTSB operates the NTSB Academy in Ashburn, Virginia. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $102,400,000 for the salaries and 

expenses of the NTSB, which is equal to the fiscal year 2012 level 

and equal to the budget request. The Committee commends the 

NTSB for requesting a budget at a hard freeze at fiscal year 2012 

enacted levels, even though its budget consists largely of salaries 

and expenses. The leadership of the NTSB is to be commended for 

this recognition of the current era of fiscal austerity. 

NTSB Academy.—The agency is encouraged to continue to seek 

additional opportunities to lease out, or otherwise generate revenue 

from the NTSB Academy, so that the agency can appropriately 

focus its resources on the important investigative work that is central to the agency’s mission. In addition, the agency is again directed to submit detailed information on the costs associated with 

the NTSB Academy, as well as the revenue the facility is expected 

to generate, as part of the fiscal year 2014 budget request. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
109 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $215,300,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 213,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 225,300,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +10,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ +12,300,000 

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by 

the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the 

Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978). 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation now operates under the 

trade name ‘NeighborWorks America.’ NeighborWorks America 

helps local communities establish working partnerships between 

residents and representatives of the public and private sectors. 

These partnership-based organizations are independent, tax-exempt, community-based nonprofit entities, often referred to as 

NeighborWorks organizations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $225,300,000 for 

fiscal year 2012, which is $10,000,000 above the fiscal year 2012 

enacted level and $12,300,000 above the budget request. 

In total, $80,000,000 is provided for the National Foreclosure 

Mitigation Counseling (NFMC) program, which is the same as the 

fiscal year 2012 enacted level and $5,900,000 below the fiscal 2013 

budget request. The NFMC has provided foreclosure counseling for 

over one million families to date. This program has also provided 

training for more than 4,000 foreclosure counselors. 

NeighborWorks has done an admirable job in adapting to different 

responsibilities and fulfilling its mission. 

UNITED STATES INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $3,300,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 3,600,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,300,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥300,000 

The mission of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) is ‘‘to coordinate the Federal response to homelessness and to create a national partnership at every level of government and with the private sector to reduce and end homelessness in the nation while maximizing the effectiveness of the Federal Government in contributing to the end of homelessness.’’ 42 

U.S.C. 11311 (2012). 

The USICH was reauthorized in 2009 in the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act, 

P.L. 111–22, with a termination date of October 1, 2010. This date 

was extended to October 1, 2015. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
110 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,300,000 for the USICH, which is 

the same as fiscal year 2012 and $300,000 below the budget request. 

On June 22, 2010, the USICH fulfilled one of its core responsibilities under the HEARTH Act by publishing the nation’s first comprehensive plan to prevent and end homelessness. The plan, 

‘‘Opening Doors: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End 

Homelessness,’’ will continue to serve as the roadmap for future coordinated efforts between the nineteen USICH member agencies 

and local and state partners. 

The Committee encourages the nineteen USICH agencies to use 

the next few years to establish good working relationships and 

interagency efficiencies that will endure past the USICH’s sunset 

date in 2015. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(111) 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT 

Section 401. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in this Act or 

previous appropriations Acts. 

Section 402. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act. 

Section 403. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

obligations beyond the current fiscal year and prohibiting transfers 

of funds unless expressly provided in this Act. 

Section 404. The Committee continues the provision limiting consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement contracts. 

Section 405. The Committee continues the provision specifying 

reprogramming procedures by subjecting the establishment of new 

offices and reorganizations to the reprogramming process. 

Section 406. The Committee continues a provision that ensures 

that 50 percent of unobligated balances may remain available for 

certain purposes. 

Section 407. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies and departments funded in this Act to report on all sole 

source contracts. 

Section 408. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

employee training not directly related to the performance of official 

duties. 

Section 409. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds from being used for any project that seeks to use the power 

of eminent domain unless eminent domain is employed only for a 

public use. 

Section 410. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the transfer of funds made available in this Act to any instrumentality of the United States Government except as authorized by 

this Act or any other appropriations Act. 

Section 411. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act from being used to permanently replace an employee intent on returning to his past occupation after completion 

of military service. 

Section 412. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act from being used unless the expenditure is in compliance with the Buy American Act. 

Section 413. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds from being appropriated or made available to any person or 

entity that has been found to violate the Buy American Act. 

Section 414. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits funds for first-class airline accommodations in contravention 

of section 301–10.122 and 301–10.123 of title 41 CFR. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
112 

Section 415. The Committee continues the provision which prohibits funds in this Act or any prior Act from going to the group 

ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations. 

Section 416. The Committee includes a provision that prohibits 

convicted felons from receiving certain Federal funds. 

Section 417. The Committee includes a provision that prohibits 

funding to corporations with any unpaid Federal tax liability. 

Section 418. The Committee includes a provision that establishes 

a spending reduction account. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The following materials are submitted in accordance with various 

requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives: 

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

There were no rollcall votes. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

RESCISSION OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration, Research, Engineering & Development ................................................................................................ $26,183,998 

Federal Railroad Administration, Next Generation High Speed Rail 1,973,000 

Federal Railroad Administration, Northeast Corridor Improvement 

Program .............................................................................................. 4,419,000 

Federal Transit Administration, Formula and Bus Grants ............... 72,495,539 

Federal Transit Administration, Capital Investment Grants ............ 11,429,055 

Federal Transit Administration, Washington Metropolitan Area 

Transit Authority ............................................................................... 523,000 

Federal Transit Administration, University Transportation Research .................................................................................................. 292,554 

Federal Transit Administration, Job Access and Reverse Commute 

Grants ................................................................................................. 14,661,719 

Federal Transit Administration, Research, Training & Human Resources ................................................................................................. 247,579 

Federal Transit Administration, Interstate Transfer Grants ............ 2,661,568 

Federal Transit Administration, Urban Discretionary Accounts ...... 578,353 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Housing Certificate Fund ...................................................................... Such sums 

as available 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
113 

APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted regarding the 

transfers of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

UNDER TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Account from which the transfer is made Account to which the transfer is made Amount 

Office of the Secretary ............................ Office of the Secretary .......................... ≤5% of certain funds subject to conditions 

Federal Aviation Administration ............. Federal Aviation Administration ............ ≤2% of certain funds subject to conditions 

FHWA: Limitation on administrative expenses.Appalachian Regional Commission ....... $3,220,000 

MARAD: Operations & Training ............... Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) 

Program Account.

$3,750,000 

Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration.

Pipeline Safety ....................................... $1,500,000 

UNDER TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

Account from which the transfer is made Account to which the transfer is made Amount 

FHA MMI Program Account ..................... Working Capital Fund ............................ $71,500,000 

Shelter Plus Care .................................... Homeless Assistance Grants ................. Such sums as available 

Administration, Operations and Management.Program Office Salaries and Expenses ≤5% or $5,000,000, whichever is less, 

subject to conditions 

Program Office Salaries and Expenses .. Administration, Operations and Management.≤5% or $5,000,000, whichever is less, 

subject to conditions 

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED

SPENDING ITEMS

Neither the bill nor the report contains any Congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

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

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE VII—AVIATION PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * * 

PART B—AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
114 

CHAPTER 471—AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER I—AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT 

* * * * * * * 

§ 47124. Agreements for State and local operation of airport 

facilities 

(a) * * * 

(b) AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL CONTRACT PROGRAM.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) CONTRACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER PROGRAM.— (A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) COSTS EXCEEDING BENEFITS.—If the costs of operating an air traffic tower under the program exceed the 

benefits, the airport sponsor or State or local government 

having jurisdiction over the airport shall pay the portion 

of the costs that exceed such benefit, with the maximum 

allowable local cost share capped at 20 percent. 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL HOUSING ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—MORTGAGE INSURANCE 

* * * * * * * 

MORTGAGE INSURANCE FOR HOSPITALS

SEC. 242. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(i) TERMINATION OF EXEMPTION FOR CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITALS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The exemption for critical access hospitals 

under subsection (b)(1)(B) shall have no effect after øJuly 31, 

2011¿ July 31, 2016. 

* * * * * * * 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992 

SEC. 184. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR INDIAN HOUSING. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(d) GUARANTEE FEE.—The Secretary shall fix and collect a guarantee fee for the guarantee of loans under this section, which may 

not exceed the amount equal to 1 percent of the principal obligation 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
115 

of the loan. The fee shall be paid by the lender at time of issuance 

of the guarantee and shall be adequate, in the determination of the 

Secretary, to cover expenses and probable losses. The Secretary 

shall deposit any fees collected under this subsection in the Indian 

Housing Loan Guarantee Fund established under subsection (i).¿ 

(d) GUARANTEE FEE.—The Secretary shall establish and collect, 

at the time of issuance of the guarantee, a fee for the guarantee of 

loans under this section, in an amount not exceeding 3 percent of 

the principal obligation of the loan. The Secretary may also establish and collect annual premium payments in an amount not exceeding 1 percent of the remaining guaranteed balance (excluding 

the portion of the remaining balance attributable to the fee collected 

at the time of issuance of the guarantee). The Secretary shall establish the amount of the fees and premiums by publishing a notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary shall deposit any fees and premiums collected under this subsection in the Indian Housing Loan 

Guarantee Fund established under subsection (i). 

* * * * * * * 

CRANSTON-GONZALEZ NATIONAL AFFORDABLE 

HOUSING ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—INVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE 

HOUSING 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle A—HOME Investment Partnerships 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 225. TENANT AND PARTICIPANT PROTECTIONS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) TERMINATION OF TENANCY.—An owner shall not terminate 

the tenancy or refuse to renew the lease of a tenant of rental housing assisted under this title except for serious or repeated violation 

of the terms and conditions of the lease, for violation of applicable 

Federal, State, or local law, or for other good cause. Any termination or refusal to renew must be preceded by not less than 30 

days by the owner’s service upon the tenant of a written notice 

specifying the grounds for the action. Such 30 day waiting period 

is not required if the grounds for the termination or refusal to renew 

involve a direct threat to the safety of the tenants or employees of 

the housing, or an imminent and serious threat to the property (and 

the termination or refusal to renew is in accordance with the requirements of State or local law). 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
116 

Subtitle B—Community Housing Partnership 

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

(a) * * * 

(b) RECAPTURE AND REUSE.—If any funds reserved under subsection (a) remain uninvested for a period of 24 months, then the 

Secretary shall deduct such funds from the line of credit in the participating jurisdiction’s HOME Investment Trust Fund and ømake 

such funds available by direct reallocation (1) to other participating 

jurisdictions for affordable housing developed, sponsored or owned 

by community housing development organizations, or (2) to nonprofit intermediary organizations to carry out activities that develop the capacity of community housing development organizations consistent with section 233, with preference to community 

housing development organizations serving the jurisdiction from 

which the funds were recaptured¿ reallocate the funds by formula 

in accordance with section 217(d) of this Act (42 U.S.C. 12747(d)). ø(c) DIRECT REALLOCATION CRITERIA.—Insofar as practicable, direct reallocations under this section shall be made according to the 

selection criteria established under section 217(c).¿ 

* * * * * * * 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO ADDRESS HURRICANES 

IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, AND PANDEMIC INFLUENZA 

ACT, 2006 

(Public Law 109–148) 

* * * * * * * 

DIVISION B 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I 

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO 

ADDRESS HURRICANES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 9 

* * * * * * * 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

For an additional amount for the ‘‘Community development 

fund’’, for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term 

recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in the most impacted 

and distressed areas related to the consequences of hurricanes in 

the Gulf of Mexico in 2005 in States for which the President declared a major disaster under title IV of the Robert T. Stafford DisVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
117 

aster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) 

in conjunction with Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or Wilma, 

$11,500,000,000, to remain available until expended, for activities 

authorized under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–383): Provided, That no State 

shall receive more than 54 percent of the amount provided under 

this heading: Provided further, That funds provided under this 

heading shall be administered through an entity or entities designated by the Governor of each State: Provided further, That such 

funds may not be used for activities reimbursable by or for which 

funds are made available by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency or the Army Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That 

funds allocated under this heading shall not adversely affect the 

amount of any formula assistance received by a State under this 

heading: Provided further, That each State may use up to five percent of its allocation for administrative costs: Provided further, That Louisiana and Mississippi may each use up to $20,000,000 

(with up to $400,000 each for technical assistance) from funds 

made available under this heading for LISC and the Enterprise 

Foundation for activities authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 9816 note), as in effect immediately before June 12, 1997, and for activities authorized under 

section 11 of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 

1996, including demolition, site clearance and remediation, and 

program administration: Provided further, That in administering 

the funds under this heading, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 

Development shall waive, or specify alternative requirements for, 

any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with the obligation by the Secretary or the 

use by the recipient of these funds or guarantees (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment), upon a request by the State that such 

waiver is required to facilitate the use of such funds or guarantees, 

and a finding by the Secretary that such waiver would not be inconsistent with the overall purpose of the statute, as modified: Provided further, That the Secretary may waive the requirement that 

activities benefit persons of low and moderate income, except that 

at least 50 percent of the funds made available under this heading 

must benefit primarily persons of low and moderate income unless 

the Secretary otherwise makes a finding of compelling need: Provided further, That the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register any waiver of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers pursuant to title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 no later than 5 days before the effective date 

of such waiver: Provided further, That every waiver made by the 

Secretary must be reconsidered according to the three previous provisos on the two-year anniversary of the day the Secretary published the waiver in the Federal Register: Provided further, That 

prior to the obligation of funds each State shall submit a plan to 

the Secretary detailing the proposed use of all funds, including criteria for eligibility and how the use of these funds will address 

long-term recovery and restoration of infrastructure: Provided further, That each State will report quarterly to the Committees on 

Appropriations on all awards and uses of funds made available 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 

under this heading, including specifically identifying all awards of 

sole-source contracts and the rationale for making the award on a 

sole-source basis: Provided further, That the Secretary shall notify 

the Committees on Appropriations on any proposed allocation of 

any funds and any related waivers made pursuant to these provisions under this heading no later than 5 days before such waiver 

is made: Provided further, That the Secretary shall establish procedures to prevent recipients from receiving any duplication of benefits and report øquarterly¿ annually to the Committees on Appropriations with regard to all steps taken to prevent fraud and abuse 

of funds made available under this heading including duplication 

of benefits: Provided further, That the amounts provided under this 

heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 

section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006. 

* * * * * * * 

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT 

FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND 

HURRICANE RECOVERY, 2006 

(Public Law 109–234) 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II 

FURTHER HURRICANE DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY 

* * * * * * * 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 9 

* * * * * * * 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For an additional amount for the ‘‘Community development 

fund’’, for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term 

recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in the most impacted 

and distressed areas related to the consequences of Hurricanes 

Katrina, Rita, or Wilma in States for which the President declared 

a major disaster under title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), 

$5,200,000,000, to remain available until expended, for activities 

authorized under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–383): Provided, That funds proVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
119 

vided under this heading shall be administered through an entity 

or entities designated by the Governor of each State: Provided further, That such funds may not be used for activities reimbursable 

by or for which funds are made available by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Army Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That funds allocated under this heading shall not adversely affect the amount of any formula assistance received by a 

State under this heading: Provided further, That each State may 

use up to five percent of its allocation for administrative costs: Provided further, That not less than $1,000,000,000 from funds made 

available on a pro-rata basis according to the allocation made to 

each State under this heading shall be used for repair, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (including demolition, site clearance and 

remediation) of the affordable rental housing stock (including public and other HUD-assisted housing) in the impacted areas: Provided further, That no State shall receive more than 

$4,200,000,000: Provided further, That in administering the funds 

under this heading, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may waive, or specify alternative requirements for, any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in 

connection with the obligation by the Secretary or the use by the 

recipient of these funds or guarantees (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the 

environment), upon a request by the State that such waiver is required to facilitate the use of such funds or guarantees, and a finding by the Secretary that such waiver would not be inconsistent 

with the overall purpose of the statute: Provided further, That the 

Secretary may waive the requirement that activities benefit persons of low and moderate income, except that at least 50 percent 

of the funds made available under this heading must benefit primarily persons of low and moderate income unless the Secretary 

otherwise makes a finding of compelling need: Provided further, 

That the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register any waiver of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers pursuant to title I of the Housing and Community Development Act 

of 1974 no later than 5 days before the effective date of such waiver: Provided further, That every waiver made by the Secretary 

must be reconsidered according to the three previous provisos on 

the two-year anniversary of the day the Secretary published the 

waiver in the Federal Register: Provided further, That prior to the 

obligation of funds each State shall submit a plan to the Secretary 

detailing the proposed use of all funds, including criteria for eligibility and how the use of these funds will address long-term recovery and restoration of infrastructure: Provided further, That prior 

to the obligation of funds to each State, the Secretary shall ensure 

that such plan gives priority to infrastructure development and rehabilitation and the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the affordable rental housing stock including public and other HUD-assisted 

housing: Provided further, That each State will report quarterly to 

the Committees on Appropriations on all awards and uses of funds 

made available under this heading, including specifically identifying all awards of sole-source contracts and the rationale for making the award on a sole-source basis: Provided further, That the 

Secretary shall notify the Committees on Appropriations on any 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
120 

proposed allocation of any funds and any related waivers made 

pursuant to these provisions under this heading no later than 5 

days before such waiver is made: Provided further, That the Secretary shall establish procedures to prevent recipients from receiving any duplication of benefits and report øquarterly¿ annually to 

the Committees on Appropriations with regard to all steps taken 

to prevent fraud and abuse of funds made available under this 

heading including duplication of benefits: Provided further, That of 

the amounts made available under this heading, $12,000,000 shall 

be transferred to ‘‘Management and Administration, Salaries and 

Expenses’’, of which $7,000,000 is for the administrative costs, including IT costs, of the KDHAP/DVP voucher program; $9,000,000 

shall be transferred to the Office of Inspector General; and 

$6,000,000 shall be transferred to HUD’s Working Capital Fund: 

Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this heading may be used by a State or locality as a matching requirement, 

share, or contribution for any other Federal program: Provided further, That the amounts provided under this heading are designated 

as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. 

Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget 

for fiscal year 2006. 

* * * * * * * 

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 

(Public Law 110–252) 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—NATURAL DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 6—HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

For an additional amount for ‘‘Community Development Fund’’, 

for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in areas covered by a declaration of major disaster under title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) 

as a result of recent natural disasters, $300,000,000, to remain 

available until expended, for activities authorized under title I of 

the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 

93–383): Provided, That funds provided under this heading shall be 

administered through an entity or entities designated by the Governor of each State: Provided further, That such funds may not be 

used for activities reimbursable by or for which funds are made 

available by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
121 

Army Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That funds allocated 

under this heading shall not adversely affect the amount of any formula assistance received by a State under this heading: Provided 

further, That each State may use up to five percent of its allocation 

for administrative costs: Provided further, That in administering 

the funds under this heading, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 

Development shall waive, or specify alternative requirements for, 

any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with the obligation by the Secretary or the 

use by the recipient of these funds or guarantees (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment), upon a request by the State that such 

waiver is required to facilitate the use of such funds or guarantees, 

and a finding by the Secretary that such waiver would not be inconsistent with the overall purpose of the statute, as modified: Provided further, That the Secretary may waive the requirement that 

activities benefit persons of low and moderate income, except that 

at least 50 percent of the funds made available under this heading 

must benefit primarily persons of low and moderate income unless 

the Secretary otherwise makes a finding of compelling need: Provided further, That the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register any waiver of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers pursuant to title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 no later than 5 days before the effective date 

of such waiver: Provided further, That every waiver made by the 

Secretary must be reconsidered according to the three previous provisos on the two-year anniversary of the day the Secretary published the waiver in the Federal Register: Provided further, That 

prior to the obligation of funds each State shall submit a plan to 

the Secretary detailing the proposed use of all funds, including criteria for eligibility and how the use of these funds will address 

long-term recovery and restoration of infrastructure: Provided further, That each State will report quarterly to the Committees on 

Appropriations on all awards and uses of funds made available 

under this heading, including specifically identifying all awards of 

sole-source contracts and the rationale for making the award on a 

sole-source basis: Provided further, That the Secretary shall notify 

the Committees on Appropriations on any proposed allocation of 

any funds and any related waivers made pursuant to these provisions under this heading no later than 5 days before such waiver 

is made: Provided further, That the Secretary shall establish procedures to prevent recipients from receiving any duplication of benefits and report øquarterly¿ annually to the Committees on Appropriations with regard to all steps taken to prevent fraud and abuse 

of funds made available under this heading including duplication 

of benefits. 

* * * * * * * 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009 

(Public Law 110–329) 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
122 

DIVISION B—DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY 

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—RELIEF AND RECOVERY FROM NATURAL 

DISASTERS 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 10—TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

For an additional amount for the ‘‘Community Development 

Fund’’, for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term 

recovery, and restoration of infrastructure, housing, and economic 

revitalization in areas affected by hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters occuring during 2008 for which the President declared a major disaster under title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974, $6,500,000,000, 

to remain available until expended, for activities authorized under 

title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 

(Public Law 93–383): Provided, That funds provided under this 

heading shall be administered through an entity or entities designated by the Governor of each State: Provided further, That such 

funds may not be used for activities reimbursable by, or for which 

funds are made available by, the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency or the Army Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That 

funds allocated under this heading shall not adversely affect the 

amount of any formula assistance received by a State under the 

Community Development Fund: Provided further, That each State 

may use up to 5 percent of its allocation for administrative costs: 

Provided further, That $6,500,000 shall be available for use by the 

Assistant Secretary of Community Planning and Development for 

the administrative costs, including information technology costs, 

with respect to amounts made available under this section and 

under section 2301(a) of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act 

of 2008. Provided further, That not less than $650,000,000 from 

funds made available on a pro-rata basis according to the allocation 

made to each State under this heading shall be used for repair, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (including demolition, site clearance and remediation) of the affordable rental housing stock (including public and other HUD-assisted housing) in the impacted 

areas where there is a demonstrated need as determined by the 

Secretary: Provided further, That in administering the funds under 

this heading, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

may waive, or specify alternative requirements for, any provision 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
123 

of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with the obligation by the Secretary or the use by the recipient of these funds or guarantees (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the 

environment), upon a request by a State explaining why such waiver is required to facilitate the use of such funds or guarantees, if 

the Secretary finds that such waiver would not be inconsistent with 

the overall purpose of title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974: Provided further, That a waiver granted by the 

Secretary under the preceding proviso may not reduce the percentage of funds which must be used for activities that benefit persons 

of low and moderate income to less than 50 percent, unless the Secretary specifically finds that there is compelling need to further reduce or eliminate the percentage requirement: Provided further, 

That the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register any waiver of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers pursuant to title I of the Housing and Community Development Act 

of 1974 no later than 5 days before the effective date of such waiver: Provided further, That every waiver made by the Secretary 

must be reconsidered according to the three previous provisos on 

the 2-year anniversary of the day the Secretary published the waiver in the Federal Register: Provided further, That the Secretary 

shall allocate to the states not less than 33 percent of the funding 

provided under this heading within 60 days after the enactment of 

this Act based on the best estimates available of relative damage 

and anticipated assistance from other Federal sources: Provided 

further, That prior to the obligation of funds each State shall submit a plan to the Secretary detailing the proposed use of all funds, 

including criteria for eligibility and how the use of these funds will 

address long-term recovery and restoration of infrastructure: Provided further, That each State will report quarterly to the Committees on Appropriations on all awards and uses of funds made available under this heading, including specifically identifying all 

awards of sole-source contracts and the rationale for making the 

award on a sole-source basis: Provided further, That the Secretary 

shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of any proposed allocation of any funds and any related waivers made pursuant to the 

provisions under this heading no later than 5 days before such allocation or waiver is made: Provided further, That the Secretary 

shall establish procedures to prevent recipients from receiving any 

duplication of benefits and report øquarterly¿ annually to the Committees on Appropriations with regard to all steps taken to prevent 

fraud and abuse of funds made available under this heading including duplication of benefits: Provided further, That none of the 

funds provided under this heading may be used by a State or locality as a matching requirement, share, or contribution for any other 

Federal program. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
124 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 

(Public Law 110–161) 

AN ACT Making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and 

related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. 

* * * * * * * 

DIVISION K—TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

ACT, 2008 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

* * * * * * * 

øFLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

ø(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

øFrom the Rental Housing Assistance Fund, all uncommitted 

balances of excess rental charges as of September 30, 2007, and 

any collections made during fiscal year 2008 and all subsequent fiscal years, shall be transferred to the Flexible Subsidy Fund, as authorized by section 236(g) of the National Housing Act.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which directly 

or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Salaries and 

expenses’’ specifying certain amounts for individual offices of the 

Office of the Secretary and official reception and representation expenses, and specifying transfer authority among offices. 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Salaries and 

expenses’’ which would allow crediting the account with up to 

$2,500,000 in user fees; prohibits establishment of Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Financial Management Capital’’ which provides funds to upgrade DOT’s 

financial systems and processes. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
125 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Cyber 

Security Initiatives’’ which provides funds for information technology security upgrades. 

Language is included for the Office of Civil Rights, which is responsible for advising the Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity issues and ensuring the full implementation of the civil 

rights laws and departmental civil rights policies in all official actions and programs. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Transportation planning, research, and development’’ which provides 

funds for conducting transportation planning, research, systems development, development activities and making grants, and makes 

funds available until expended. 

Language is included that limits operating costs and capital outlays of the Working Capital Fund for the Department of Transportation; provides that services shall be provided on a competitive 

basis, except for non-DOT entities; restricts the transfer for any 

funds to the Working Capital Fund with approval; and limits special assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any 

program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable agreements that are presented to and approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Minority 

business resource center’’ which limits the amount of loans that 

can be subsidized, and provides funds for administrative expenses. 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Minority 

business outreach’’ specifying that funds may be used for business 

opportunities related to any mode of transportation, and limits the 

availability of funds. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Payments to air carriers’’ that provides funds from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, allows the Secretary of Transportation to consider 

subsidy requirements when determining service to a community, 

limits funds only to communities served in fiscal year 2011, eliminates the requirement that carriers use at least 15-passenger aircraft, and allows the Secretary to repay any funds borrowed from 

the Federal Aviation Administration to fund the essential air service program. 

Section 101 prohibits the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from approving assessments or reimbursable agreements 

pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal administrations in 

this Act, unless such assessments or agreements have completed 

the normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification. 

Section 102 allows the Secretary or his designee to work with 

States and State legislators to consider proposals related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities. 

Section 103 allows the Department to use the Working Capital 

Fund to provide transit benefits to Federal employees. 

Section 104 sets administrative requirements of the Department’s Credit Council. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that provides funds for operations and research related to commercial space transportation, administrative expenses 

for research and development, establishment of air navigation faVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
126 

cilities, establishment of air navigation facilities, the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of aircraft, subsidizing the cost 

of aeronautical charts and maps sold to the public, lease or purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement; funds for certain aviation program activities; and specifies transfer authority 

among offices. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ permitting transfer of funds, as specified. 

Language is included requiring a controller workforce plan by 

March 31 of each fiscal year required by section 221 of Public Law 

108–176 and reduces the appropriation by $100,000 for each day 

the report is late. 

Language is included requiring a similar March 31 report on 

flight standards and aircraft certification staff and reduces the appropriation by $100,000 for each day the report is late. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ permitting the use of funds to enter into a grant 

agreement with a nonprofit standard setting organization to develop aviation safety standards. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits the use of funds for new applicants of 

the second career training program. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds to plan, finalize, or implement 

any regulation that would promulgate new aviation user fees not 

specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that credits funds received from States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred in the provision of agency services. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that provides $10,350,000 for the contract tower cost 

sharing program. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds for conducting and coordinating 

activities on aeronautical charting and cartography through the 

Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that provides funds for acquisition, establishment, technical support services, improvement by contract 

or purchase, and hire of air navigation and experimental facilities 

and equipment; engineering and service testing, construction and 

furnishing of quarters and related accommodations at remote localities; and the purchase, lease, or transfer of aircraft. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that provides funds from the Airport 

and Airway Trust Fund and limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that allows certain funds received for 

expenses incurred in the establishment and modernization of air 

navigation facilities to be credited to the account. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
127 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that requires the Secretary of Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment plan for the 

Federal Aviation Administration. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Research, engineering, and development’’ that provides funds from 

the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for research, engineering, and 

development, including construction of experimental facilities and 

acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant; and limits the 

availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Research, engineering, and development’’ that allows certain funds 

received for expenses incurred in research, engineering and development to be credited to the account. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that provides funds from the Airport 

and Airway Trust Fund for airport planning and development; 

noise compatibility planning and programs; procurement, installation, and commissioning of runway incursion prevention devices 

and systems; grants authorized under section 41743 of title 49, 

U.S.C.; and inspection activities and administration of airport safety programs; and limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that limits funds available for the planning or execution of programs with obligations in excess of 

$3,350,000,000. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that prohibits funds for the replacement of baggage conveyor systems, reconfiguration of terminal baggage areas, or other airport improvements that are necessary to install bulk explosive detection systems. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that establishes a cost share of 95 percent for construction projects for which the project sponsor received 

a grant in fiscal year 2011. Language is included under Federal 

Aviation Administration, ‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that provides 

$105,000,000 for administration. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that specifies $15,000,000 for the airport cooperative research program, $29,300,000 for the airport 

technology research program. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that rescinds contract authority above 

the obligation limitation. 

Section 110 limits the number of technical workyears at the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to 600 in fiscal 

year 2011. 

Section 111 prohibits FAA from requiring airport sponsors to provide the agency ‘‘without cost’’ building construction, maintenance, 

utilities and expenses, or space in sponsor-owned buildings, except 

in the case of certain specified exceptions. 

Section 112 allows reimbursement for fees collected and credited 

under 49 U.S.C. 45303. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
128 

Section 113 allows reimbursement of funds for providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities to be credited to the 

operations account. 

Section 114 prohibits funds limited in this Act for the Airport Improvement Program to be provided to an airport that refuses a request from the Secretary of Transportation to use public space at 

the airport for the purpose of conducting outreach on air passenger 

rights. 

Section 115 prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium pay 

except in those cases where the individual actually worked on a 

Sunday. 

Section 116 prohibits FAA from using funds to purchase store 

gift cards or gift certificates through a government-issued credit 

card. 

Section 117 allows airports experiencing the required level of 

boardings through charter and scheduled air service to be eligible 

for funds under 49 U.S.C. 47114(c). 

Section 118 requires approval from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration of the Department of Transportation for 

retention bonuses for any FAA employee. 

Section 119 limits the cost-share required under the contract 

tower program to 20 percent. 

Section 119A requires the Secretary to block the display of an 

owner or operator’s aircraft registration number in the Aircraft Situational Display to Industry program, upon the request of an 

owner or operator. 

Section 119B prohibits funds to change weight restrictions or 

prior permission rules at Teterboro Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Limitation on administrative expenses’’ that limits the 

amount to be paid, together with advances and reimbursements received, for the administrative expenses of the agency, including an 

amount for financial system upgrades subject to conditions. In addition to this limitation, an amount is specified that is to be made 

available to the Appalachian Regional Commission for administrative expenses. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Federal-aid highways’’ that limits the obligations for Federalaid highways and highway safety construction programs; limits the 

amount available for the implementation or execution of programs 

for transportation research, which shall not apply to any authority 

previously made available for obligation; and allows the Secretary 

to charge, collect and spend fees for loan applications and that such 

amounts are in addition to administrative expenses and are not 

subject to any obligation limitation or limitation on administrative 

expenses under section 608 of title 23, U.S.C., and which are available until expended. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Federal-aid highways’’ that liquidates contract authority. 

Section 120 distributes obligation authority among federal-aid 

highways programs. 

Section 121 credits funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the federal-aid highways account. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
129 

Section 122 provides requirements for any waiver of the Buy 

American Act. 

Section 123 prohibits tolling in Texas, with exceptions. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs’’ 

that provides a limitation on obligations and liquidation of contract 

authorization, including specifying amounts available for research 

and technology programs and commercial motor vehicle operator’s 

grants; and prohibits funds for outreach and education from being 

transferred. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Motor carrier safety grants’’ that provides a limitation on obligations and liquidation of contract authorization, including specifying amounts available for the commercial driver’s license improvements program, border enforcement grants program, 

the performance and registration information system management 

program, the commercial vehicle information systems and networks 

deployment program, the safety data improvement program, and 

the commercial driver’s license information system modernization 

program; and specifies amount for new entrant audits. 

Section 130 continues a provision subjecting funds appropriated 

in this Act to the terms and conditions included in prior appropriations Acts regarding Mexico-domiciled motor carriers. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Operations and research’’ that limits the availability 

of funds and prohibits the planning or implementation of any rulemaking on labeling passenger car tires for low rolling resistance. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Operations and research’’ that provides a limitation 

on obligations, limits the availability of funds, and provides a liquidation of contract authorization from the highway trust fund. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration ‘‘National driver register’’ that provides a limitation 

on obligations and a liquidation of contract authorization from the 

highway trust fund. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration ‘‘National driver register modernization’’ that limits 

the availability of funds. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ that provides a limitation on obligations, limits the availability of funds, specifies the 

amounts for certain safety grant programs and provides a liquidation of contract authorization from the highway trust fund. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration that reallocates funds from the seat belt performance grants program to fund a new distracted driving grant program and allows a portion of the funding to be used for the development, production, and use of broadcast and print media in support of efforts to prevent distracted driving. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ prohibiting the use of 

funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling costs or for office furniture for state, local, or private buildings. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
130 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ that limits funding for 

an evaluation for the high visibility enforcement program. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ limiting the amount 

of funds available for technical assistance to states under section 

410. 

Section 140 provides funding for travel and related expenses for 

state management reviews and highway safety core competency development training. 

Section 141 exempts obligation authority that was made available in previous public laws for multiple years from limitations on 

obligations for the current year. 

Section 142 prohibits funding for the National Highway Safety 

Advisory Committee. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Safety and operations’’ limiting the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Railroad research and development’’ limiting the availability of 

funds. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program’’ authorizing the Secretary to issue direct loans and loan guarantees 

under sections 502 through 504 of the Railroad Revitalization and 

Regulatory Reform Act. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program’’ that prohibits 

new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using federal 

funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act. 

Language is included under the Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Operating subsidy grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation’’ that allows the Secretary of Transportation to make 

quarterly grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation; 

allows the Secretary to approve funding only after receiving and reviewing a grant request for each train route; ensures that each 

grant request is accompanied by a detailed financial analysis, revenue projection, and capital expenditure projection; requires the 

Corporation to submit a detailed business plan that includes targets for ridership, revenues, and capital and operating expenses as 

well as semi-annual reports regarding the status of the business 

plan; requires the Corporation to follow the provisions of the direct 

loan agreement; prohibits funds to support any route with a discounted fare of more than 50 percent off the normal peak fare, unless the operating loss is the result of a discount covered by a 

State; and requires Amtrak to submit a 2014 budget similar to 

other Federal agencies. 

Language is included under the Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Capital and Debt Service Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation’’ that allows the Secretary of Transportation to 

make grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for 

the maintenance and repair of capital infrastructure and debt service; allows the Secretary to retain some funds to be used for oversight; bars a portion of these funds under this section to be used 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
131 

for operating losses; restricts the use of funds unless they have 

been approved by the Secretary or are contained in the Corporation’s business plan; provides funds for high priority state-of-goodrepair intercity infrastructure projects on existing intercity passenger rail services; and allows the Secretary to retain some funds 

to be used by the Northeast Corridor Commission. 

Section 150 retains a provision that ceases the availability of 

Amtrak funds if the railroad contracts for services outside the 

United States for any service performed by a full-time or part-time 

Amtrak employee as of July 1, 2006. 

Section 151 retains a provision, which allows FRA to receive and 

use cash or spare parts to repair and replace damaged automated 

track inspection cars and equipment in connection with the automated track inspection program. 

Section 152 includes a provision which authorizes the Secretary 

to allow issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase 

such stock sold to the Department. 

Section 153 continues a provision that limits overtime to $35,000 

per employee, allows Amtrak’s president to waive this restriction 

for specific employees for safety or operational efficiency reasons, 

and requires notification to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations within 30 days of granting such a waiver. 

Section 154 includes a provision which transfers unobligated balances in contract authority that were originally authorized for 

Magnetic Levitation to activities authorized under the RailwayHighway Grade Crossing Hazard Elimination Program. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Administrative Expenses’’ specifying an amount for administrative expenses and travel; prohibiting a permanent office of transit security; directing the submission of the annual report on new starts. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Formula and Bus Grants’’ that provides a limitation on obligations 

from the Highway Trust Fund, contingent upon reauthorization, 

and limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Liquidation of Contract Authority 

which makes funds available for payments of obligations, contingent upon authorization. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Research and University Research Centers’’ that limits the availability of funds and specifies the amounts for certain offices and 

programs. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 

‘‘Capital Investment Grants’’ that limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 

‘‘Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’’ for capital and 

preventive maintenance expenditures and requires the Secretary to 

determine that WMATA has placed the highest priority on safety 

investments and waives a requirement under the Passenger Rail 

Infrastructure Improvement and Investment Act. 

Section 160 exempts previously made transit obligations from 

limitations on obligations. 

Section 161 allows funds appropriated for capital investment 

grants and bus and bus facilities not obligated by September 30, 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
132 

2015, plus other recoveries to be available for other projects under 

49 U.S.C. 5309. 

Section 162 allows for the transfer of prior year appropriations 

from older accounts to be merged into new accounts with similar, 

current activities. 

Section 163 allows prior year funds available for capital investment grants to be used in this fiscal year for such projects. 

Section 164 requires unobligated funds or recoveries under section 5309 of title 49 that are available for reallocation shall be directed to projects eligible to use the funds for the purposes for 

which they were originally intended. 

Section 165 provides flexibility to fund program management 

oversight activities as authorized by section 5316 of title 49, United 

States Code. 

Section 166 prohibits funds from being used to carry out 49 

U.S.C. 5309(m)(6)(B) and (C). 

Section 167 prohibits a full funding grant agreement for a project 

with a new starts share greater than 60%. 

Section 168 directs the Secretary to conduct a formal adjudication related to charter bus service under part 604 of title 49 CFR. 

Section 169 permits the Secretary to consider significant private 

contributions when calculating the non-Federal share of new starts 

projects. 

Section 169A rescinds unobligated prior year funds from various 

transit accounts. 

Section 169B prohibits funds for a certain fixed guideway project 

in Houston, Texas. 

Section 169C allows fuel and utilities for vehicles to be treated 

as a capital maintenance expense under section 5307 in fiscal year 

2013, up to $100,000,000. 

Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation that authorizes expenditures, contracts, and commitments as may be necessary. 

Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ‘‘Operations and Maintenance’’ that provides 

funds derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Maritime 

Security Program’’ that provides funds to preserve a U.S. flag merchant fleet. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Operations and Training’’ that provides dedicated funds for salaries and 

benefits of employees of the United States Merchant Marine Academy, Student Incentive Program payments, capital improvements 

at the United States Merchant Marine Academy, and the State 

Maritime Schools Schoolship Maintenance and Repair; directs allotment holders, and limits funds until the Secretary completes a plan 

detailing how funding will be expended at the Academy. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Ship Disposal’’ that limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Maritime 

Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account’’ that provides for the 

transfer to Operations and Training. Section 170 allows the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and services and make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy involving government 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
133 

property under the control of MARAD and rental payments shall 

be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

Section 170 allows the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and services and make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy involving government property under the control of MARAD. 

Section 171 continues a provision regarding MARAD ship disposal. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Operational expenses’’ which specifies the 

amount derived from the pipeline safety fund and requires that 

$1,500,000 be transferred to the pipeline safety account to fund 

pipeline safety information grants to communities. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Hazardous materials safety’’ which limits 

the availability of a certain amount and allows up to $800,000 in 

fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Hazardous materials safety’’ that credits 

certain funds received for expenses incurred for training and other 

activities incurred in performance of hazardous materials exemptions and approval functions. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Pipeline safety’’ which specifies the 

amounts derived from the pipeline safety fund and the oil spill liability trust fund and limits their period of availability. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Pipeline safety’’ that requires the agency to 

fund the one-call state grant program. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Emergency Preparedness Grants’’ which 

specifies the amount derived from the emergency preparedness 

fund, limits the availability of some funds, and prohibits funds 

from being obligated by anyone other than the Secretary or his designee. 

Language is included under Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Salaries 

and expenses’’ that provides the Inspector General with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of fraud by any person 

or entity that is subject to regulation by the Department of Transportation and the authority to investigate unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by domestic and foreign air 

carriers and ticket agents. 

Language is included under the Office of the Inspector General, 

‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ providing the IG with authority to conduct 

audits and investigations of the Metropolitan Washington Airports 

Authority (MWAA) and to require MWAA to reimburse the IG to 

these audits and investigations. 

Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ allowing the collection of $1,250,000 in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board; 

and providing that the sum appropriated from the general fund 

shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as such fees are received. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
134 

Section 180 allows the Department of Transportation to use 

funds for aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or 

allowances, as authorized by law. 

Section 181 limits appropriations for services authorized by 5 

U.S.C. 3109 to the rate for an Executive Level IV. 

Section 182 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and expenses 

of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation, and prohibits political and Presidential personnel assigned on temporary detail outside the Department of Transportation. 

Section 183 prohibits recipients of funds made available in this 

Act from releasing personal information, including Social Security 

number, medical or disability information, and photographs from a 

driver’s license or motor vehicle record, without express consent of 

the person to whom such information pertains; and prohibits the 

withholding of funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a state 

is in noncompliance with this provision. 

Section 184 allows funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration from states, counties, municipalities, other 

public authorities, and private sources to be used for expenses incurred for training may be credited to each agency’s respective accounts. 

Section 185 prohibits funds in Title I of this Act from being 

issued for any grant unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than 

three full business days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 

or more is announced by the department or its modal administrations. 

Section 186 allows funds received from rebates, refunds, and 

similar sources to be credited to Department of Transportation appropriations. 

Section 187 allows amounts from improper payments to a third 

party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the Department of 

Transportation to be available to cover expenses incurred in recovery of such payments. 

Section 188 stipulates that the Committees on Appropriations 

solely approve or deny any funds provided or limited in this Act 

that are subject to a reprogramming action that requires notice to 

be provided to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 189 prohibits the Surface Transportation Board from 

charging or collecting filing fees for late complaints in an amount 

in excess of the authorized amount under section 1914 of title 28, 

United States Code. 

Section 190 allows funds to modal administrations to be obligated to the Office of the Secretary for the costs related to assessments or reimbursable agreements only when the services provide 

a direct benefit to the applicable modal administration. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Management and Administration’’ which designates 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
135 

funds for ‘‘Administration, Operations and Maintenance’’; allows 

funds to be used for certain administrative and non-administrative 

expenses; allows funds to be used for advertising and promotional 

activities; requires the Secretary to submit a detailed budget justification for each office within the Department. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Program office salaries and expenses’’ which designates funds for ‘‘Public and Indian Housing,’’ ‘‘Community Planning and Development,’’ ‘‘Housing,’’ ‘‘Policy Development and Research,’’ ‘‘Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity’’ and ‘‘Office of 

Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control.’’ 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Tenant-Based Rental Assistance’’ which specifies 

funds for certain programs, activities and purposes and limits the 

use and availability of certain funds; specifies the methodology for 

allocation of renewal funding; directs the Secretary to provide renewal funding based on validated voucher system leasing and cost 

data for the prior year; prohibits funds to exceed a public housing 

agency’s authorized level of units under contract, except for those 

participating in the Moving to Work demonstration; directs the 

Secretary to the extent possible to prorate each public housing 

agency’s (PHA) allocation; directs the Secretary to notify PHAs of 

their annual budget not later than 60 days after enactment of the 

Act; allows the Secretary to extend the notification period with the 

prior approval of the House and Senate appropriations committees; 

specifies the amounts available to the Secretary to allocate to PHAs 

that need additional funds and for fees; specifies the amount for 

additional rental subsidy due to unforeseen emergencies and portability; provides funding for public housing agencies with vouchers 

that were not in use during the previous 12 month period in order 

to be available to meet a commitment pursuant to section 8(o)(13); 

provides funding for incremental vouchers for homeless veterans; 

and provides for adjustments in allocations for PHAs that participate in the Small Area Fair Market Rent demonstration. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Tenant-Based Rental Assistance’’ which provides 

funds for tenant protection vouchers; sets certain conditions for the 

Secretary to provide such vouchers; provides funds for residents of 

multi-family properties that would not otherwise have been eligible 

for tenant-protection vouchers; and sets eligibility requirements for 

multi-family properties to participate in the program. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Tenant-Based Rental Assistance’’ which provides 

funds for administrative and other expenses of public housing 

agencies to administer the section 8 tenant-based rental assistance 

program; sets an amount to be available to PHAs that need additional funds to administer tenant protection assistance, disaster related vouchers, Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing vouchers and 

other special purpose vouchers; establishes that ‘‘Moving to Work’’ 

(MTW) agencies be funded pursuant to their MTW agreements; 

provides funds for family self-sufficiency coordinators; and provides 

funds for section 811 mainstream vouchers. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Tenant-Based Rental Assistance’’ which provides 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
136 

funds for Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers, 

sets requirements for the administration of VASH vouchers, specifies that funds shall remain available for homeless veterans upon 

turn-over of such vouchers, and requires the Secretary separately 

track such vouchers. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing Certificate Fund’’ which rescinds prior year 

funds; and allows the Secretary to use recaptures to fund projectbased contracts and contract administrators. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Public Housing Capital Fund’’ which limits the 

availability of funds; limits the delegation of certain waiver authorities and prohibits funds from being used for certain activities; 

specifies the total amount available for certain activities; specifies 

an amount for ongoing Public Housing Financial and Physical Assessment activities of the Real Estate Assessment Center; specifies 

an amount for emergency capital needs; specifies the amount for 

support services, service coordinators and congregate services; 

specifies the amount to support the costs of administrative and judicial receiverships; and makes funds available for bonuses for high 

performing PHAs. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Public Housing Operating Fund’’ which sets the 

basis for the allocation of funds and prohibits the use of funds 

under certain conditions, and provides the Secretary with the authority to take into account changes in requirements on PHAs in 

the administration of the section 8 voucher program. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Native American Housing Block Grants’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies the formula for allocation; 

specifies the amounts for technical assistance and capacity building 

to support the inspection of Indian housing units, administrative 

expenses, to subsidize the total principal amount of any notes, and 

the cost of guaranteed notes, which are defined in section 502 of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies how to define 

the costs of modifying loans; specifies the amount and availability 

of funds to subsidize total loan principal; and provides a dedicated 

amount for administrative expenses. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS’’ 

which limits availability of funds and sets forth certain requirements for the allocation and renewal of funds and contracts. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Community Development Fund’’ which limits the 

use and availability of certain funds; specifies the allocation of certain funds; specifies the amount made available for grants to federally-recognized Indian tribes, emergencies, Economic Development 

Initiatives with certain restrictions, and Neighborhood Initiatives 

with certain restrictions and the Sustainable Communities Initiative. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
137 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Community Development Loan Guarantees Program 

Account’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies how to define the costs of modifying loans; and specifies the amount and 

availability of funds to subsidize total loan principal. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Home Investment Partnerships Program’’ which 

limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain 

funds for certain purposes; and directs HUD to notify formula 

grantees no later than 60 days after enactment of the Act. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity 

Program’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain funds for certain purposes; and directs HUD to issue 

a NOFA not later than 60 days after enactment of the Act. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Homeless Assistance Grants’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain funds for certain 

purposes; specifies matching requirements; directs the Secretary to 

renew contracts under certain conditions; requires grantees to integrate homeless programs with other social service providers. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’ which limits the 

availability of funds and specifies the allocation of certain funds for 

certain purposes; and allows the Secretary to recapture residual receipts from certain properties. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing for the Elderly’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain funds; designates 

certain funds to be used only for certain grants; allows the Secretary to waive certain provisions governing contract terms; and allows the Secretary to recapture residual receipts from certain properties. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing for Persons with Disabilities’’ which limits 

the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain funds; 

and allows funds to be used to renew certain contracts. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing Counseling Assistance’’ which limits the 

availability of funds and specifies amounts to be used for administrative contract services. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Payment to Manufactured Housing Fees Trust 

Fund’’ which limits the availability of funds and permits fees to be 

assessed, modified, and collected, and permits temporary borrowing 

authority from the General Fund of the Treasury. 

Language is included under the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, ‘‘Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account’’ which sets a loan principal limitation; limits the obligations 

to make direct loans; specifies funds for specific purposes; allows 

for the transfer of certain funds; allows for additional contract expenses as guaranteed loan commitments exceed certain levels. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘General and Special Risk Program Account’’ which 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
138 

sets a loan principal limitation; limits the obligations to make direct loans; specifies funds for specific purposes; and allows for the 

transfer of funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Government National Mortgage Association’’ which 

limits new commitments to issue guarantees, provides funds for 

salaries and expenses, and allows for additional salaries and expenses as guaranteed loan commitments exceed certain levels. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Policy Development and Research’’ which limits the 

availability of funds and specifies authorized uses. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity’’ which limits 

the availability of funds; authorizes the Secretary to assess and collect fees; places restrictions on the use of funds for lobbying activities; and provides funds for programs that support the assistance 

of persons with limited English proficiency. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes’’ 

which limits the availability of funds; specifies the amount of funds 

for specific purposes; specifies the treatment of certain grants, 

specifies a matching requirement for grants, requires certification 

of grantee capacity, and allows for a reallocation of grant funds 

based on demand for such grants. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Management and Administration: Working Capital 

Fund’’ which limits the availability and purpose of funds, including 

funds transferred, provides funds for the development of information technology systems, and restricts the amount provided until 

the Secretary submits an expenditure plan for such systems. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Office of Inspector General’’ which specifies the use 

of funds and directs that the IG shall have independent authority 

over all personnel issues within the office. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Transformation Initiative’’ (TI) which provides funds 

for research, evaluation, program metrics and demonstrations, and 

requires a match from participants in such agreements. 

Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment factors. 

Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair Housing Act. 

Section 203 corrects an anomaly in the HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds for certain states. 

Section 204 requires funds appropriated to be distributed on a 

competitive basis in accordance with the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989. 

Section 205 establishes the availability of funds subject to the 

Government Corporation Control Act and the Housing Act of 1950. 

Section 206 sets requirements on the allocation of funds in excess 

of the budget estimates. 

Section 207 sets requirements regarding the expenditure of funds 

for corporations and agencies subject to the Government Corporation Control Act. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
139 

Section 208 requires the Secretary to provide quarterly reports 

on uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds in each departmental program and activity. 

Section 209 requires that the Administration’s budget and the 

Department’s budget justifications for fiscal year 2014 shall be submitted in the identical account and sub-account structure provided 

in this Act. 

Section 210 exempts PHA Boards in Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi and the County of Los Angeles from public housing resident representation requirement. 

Section 211 authorizes HUD to transfer debt and use agreements 

from an obsolete project to a viable project, provided that no additional costs are incurred, and other conditions are met. 

Section 212 prohibits the IG from changing the basis on which 

the audit of GNMA is conducted. 

Section 213 sets requirements for eligibility for Section 8 voucher 

assistance, and includes consideration for persons with disabilities. 

Section 214 requires the distribution of Native American housing 

block grant funds to the same Native Alaskan recipients as 2005. 

Section 215 authorizes the Secretary to insure mortgages under 

Section 255 of the National Housing Act. 

Section 216 instructs HUD on managing and disposing of any 

multifamily property that is owned by HUD. 

Section 217 requires the Secretary to report quarterly on HUD’s 

use of all sole source contracts. 

Section 218 authorizes the Secretary to waive certain requirements on adjusted income for certain assisted living projects for 

counties in Michigan. 

Section 219 allows the recipient of a section 202 grant to establish a single-asset nonprofit entity to own the project and may lend 

the grant funds to such entity. 

Section 220 allows amounts provided under the Section 108 loan 

guarantee program may be used to guarantee notes or other obligations issued by any State on behalf of non-entitlement communities 

in the State, and that regulations shall be promulgated within 60 

days of enactment. 

Section 221 instructs HUD that PHAs that own and operate 400 

units or fewer of public housing are exempt from asset management requirements. 

Section 222 restricts the Secretary from imposing any requirement or guideline relating to asset management that restricts or 

limits the use of capital funds for central office costs, up to the 

limit established in QHWRA. 

Section 223 requires that no employee of the Department shall 

be designated as an allotment holder unless the CFO determines 

that such allotment holder has received training. 

Section 224 provides that funding for indemnities is limited to 

non-programmatic litigation and is restricted to the payment of attorney fees only. 

Section 225 sets requirements regarding Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) announcements and publication. 

Section 226 authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 5 percent 

of funds appropriated under the title ‘‘Personnel Compensation and 

Benefits.’’ 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
140 

Section 227 allows the Disaster Housing Assistance Programs to 

be considered a program of the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development for the purpose of income verifications and matching. 

Section 228 sets limitations on funds used for PHA salary levels. 

Section 229 allows critical access hospitals to be insured under 

section 242 of the National Housing Act. 

Section 230 allows the Secretary to increase loan guarantee fees 

under the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program. 

Section 231 allows evictions in HOME-funded properties when 

necessary to ensure safety and that allows recaptured HOME technical assistance funding to be redistributed in the formula program. 

Section 232 extends the availability of Hope VI funds appropriated in prior years. 

Section 233 requires annual, rather than quarterly, reporting by 

the Secretary regarding duplication of benefits in Community Development Fund disaster funding. 

Section 234 repeals paragraphs under the heading ‘‘Flexible Subsidy Fund.’’ 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES

Language is included for the Access Board, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that allows for the credit to the appropriation of funds received for publications and training expenses. 

Language is included for the Federal Maritime Commission, 

‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that provides funds for services authorized 

by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of passenger motor vehicles, uniforms 

and allowances, and official reception and representation expenses. 

Language is included for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ to 

provide funds for an independent, objective unit responsible for detecting and preventing fraud, waste, abuse, and violations of law 

and promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness at Amtrak. 

Language is included for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ 

which requires the IG to submit its budget request concurrently 

with the President’s budget and in a similar format. 

Language is included under National Transportation Safety 

Board, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ that provides funds for hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft, services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 

3109, uniforms or allowances therefore, and for official reception 

and representation expenses. 

Language is included under National Transportation Safety 

Board, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ that allows funds provided in this 

Act to be used to pay for costs associated with a 2001 capital lease. 

Language is included in the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC), ‘‘Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation’’ which limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of funds to certain activities; and specifies the terms and conditions surrounding NRC activities. 

Language is included for the United States Interagency Council 

on Homelessness, ‘‘Operating Expenses’’ that provides funds for 

salaries, travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, rental of conference rooms, and the employment of experts and consultants. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
141 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT

Section 401 requires pay raises to be funded within appropriated 

levels in this Act or previous appropriations Acts. 

Section 402 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-Federal 

parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this 

Act. 

Section 403 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal year 

and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so provided herein. 

Section 404 limits consulting service expenditures of public 

record in procurement contracts. 

Section 405 specifies reprogramming procedures by subjecting 

the establishment of new offices and reorganizations to the reprogramming process. 

Section 406 provides that fifty percent of unobligated balances 

may remain available for certain purposes. 

Section 407 requires a report from all agencies and departments 

funded under this Act to the Committees on Appropriations on all 

sole source contracts by no later than July 30, 2010. 

Section 408 prohibits Federal training not directly related to the 

performance of official duties. 

Section 409 prohibits funds from being used for any project that 

seeks to use the power of eminent domain unless eminent domain 

is employed only for a public use. 

Section 410 prohibits the transfer of funds made available in this 

Act to any instrumentality of the United States Government except 

as authorized by this Act or any other appropriations Act. 

Section 411 prohibits funds in this Act from being used to permanently replace an employee intent on returning to his past occupation after the completion of military service. 

Section 412 prohibits funds in this Act from being used unless 

the expenditure is in compliance with the Buy American Act. 

Section 413 prohibits funds from being appropriated or made 

available to any person or entity that has been found to violate the 

Buy American Act. 

Section 414 prohibits funds for first-class airline accommodations 

in contravention of section 301–10.122 and 301–10.123 of title 41 

CFR. 

Section 415 prohibits funds in this Act or any prior Act from 

going to the group ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or 

allied organizations. 

Section 416 prohibits convicted felons from receiving certain Federal funds. 

Section 417 prohibits funding to corporations with any unpaid 

Federal tax liability. 

Section 418 establishes a spending reduction account. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

The Committee, in a number of instances, has found it necessary 

to recommend funding for ongoing activities and programs for 

which authorizations have not been enacted to date. These include 

some of the programs under the Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and related agenVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 074607 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR541.XXX HR541

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
142 

cies. Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law for 

the period concerned: 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND EXPIRING AUTHORIZATIONS 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Program Last year of 

authorization Authorization level Appropriations in last year of authorization 

Appropriations in 

this bill 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation: 

Research and Development 1 ...................... ...................... ......................... ............................... $13,670 

Federal Highway Administration: 

Federal-aid Highways 2 ............................... 2012 $39,446,216 $39,143,583 39,143,583 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: 

Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs 2 ................................................... 2012 244,144 247,724 244,144 

Motor Carrier Safety Grants 2 ..................... 2012 307,000 307,000 307,000 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

Operations and Research—General Fund .. 2009 157,400 127,000 152,000 

Operations and Research—Highway Trust 

Fund 2 ..................................................... 2012 108,244 105,500 118,244 

National Driver Register—Highway Trust 

Fund 2 ..................................................... 2012 4,116 4,000 4,166 

Highway Traffic Safety Grants 2 ................. 2012 550,328 550,328 501,828 

Federal Transit Administration: 

Administrative Expenses 2 ........................... 2012 98,713 98,713 100,000 

Research and University Research Centers 2 ....................................................... 2012 44,000 44,000 44,000 

Capital Investment Grants 2 ....................... 2012 1,955,000 1,950,000 1,816,993 

Formula & Bus Grants 2 ............................. 2012 8,360,565 8,360,565 8,360,565 

Maritime Administration: 

Operations and Training ............................. 2012 164,158 156,258 145,753 

Ship Disposal .............................................. 2012 18,500 5,500 4,000 

Title XI ......................................................... 2012 14,260 3,740 3,750 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: 

Hazardous Materials Safety ........................ 2009 32,000 32,000 42,546 

Emergency Preparedness Grants ................ 2009 30,000 28,318 28,318 

Surface Transportation Board: 

Surface Transportation Board ..................... 1998 12,000 13,853 31,250 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Rental Assistance: 

Section 8 Contract Renewals and Administrative Expenses ..................................... 1994 8,446,173 5,458,106 8,440,400 

Contract Administrators .............................. ...................... ......................... ............................... 260,000 

Public Housing Capital Fund ...................... 2003 3,000,000 2,712,555 1,985,000 

Public Housing Operating Fund .................. 2003 2,900,000 3,576,600 4,524,000 

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund ................. 2007 (3 ) 6,000 6,000 

Housing Opportunity for Persons with AIDS ........ 1994 156,300 156,000 330,000 

Community Development Fund: 

Community Development Block Grant ................. 1994 4,168,000 4,380,000 3,404,000 

Home Investment Partnership ............................. 1994 2,173,612 1,275,000 1,200,000 

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program .. 2000 ......................... 53,500 60,000 

Homeless Assistance ........................................... 2011 (3 ) 1,905,000 2,000,000 

Housing for the Elderly ........................................ 2003 ......................... 783,286 425,000 

Housing for Persons with Disabilities ................. 2003 ......................... 250,515 165,000 

FHA General and Special Risk Program Account: 

Limitations on Guaranteed Loans .............. 1995 ......................... (20,885,072 ) (25,000,000 ) 

Limitation on Direct Loans ......................... 1995 ......................... (220,000 ) (20,000 ) 

Credit Subsidy ............................................. 1995 ......................... 188,395 .........................

Administrative Expenses ............................. 1995 ......................... 197,470 215,000 

GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program Account: 

Limitations on Guaranteed Loans .............. 1996 (110,000,000 ) (110,000,000 ) (500,000,000 ) 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
143 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND EXPIRING AUTHORIZATIONS—Continued 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Program Last year of 

authorization Authorization level Appropriations in last year of authorization 

Appropriations in 

this bill 

Administrative Expenses ............................. 1996 ......................... 9,101 20,500 

Policy Development and Research ....................... 1994 36,470 35,000 52,000 

Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Program ... 1994 26,000 20,481 68,000 

Lead Hazard Reduction Program ......................... 1994 276,000 185,000 120,000 

Salaries and Expenses ......................................... 1994 1,029,496 916,963 1,326,614 

Transformation Initiative ..................................... ...................... ......................... ............................... 50,000 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES 

National Transportation Safety Board ................. 2008 96,625 91,000 102,400 

1 Research and Development was previously appropriated in the Research and Innovative Technology Administration and has been appropriated through the Office of the Secretary in this bill. 2 For surface transportation programs, the authorized level in this table is actually the annualized level of authorization provided in P.L. 112-102, which goes through June 30, 2012. 3 Such sums as necessary. 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares the levels of new 

budget authority and outlays provided in the bill with the appropriate allocations made under section 302(b) of the Budget Act: 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013 PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This Bill 

Budget 

Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to its 

subcommittees: Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

Discretionary .................................................................................. 51,606 115,161 51,606 1 114,864 

Mandatory ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section 308(a)(1)(B) of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the following table contains 

five-year outlay projections associated with the budget authority 

provided in the accompanying bill, as provided to the Committee by 

the Congressional Budget Office: 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
144 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013 PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This Bill 

Budget 

Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to its 

subcommittees: Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2013 .............................................................................................. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 37,955 

2014 .............................................................................................. n.a. n.a. n.a. 32,021 

2015 .............................................................................................. n.a. n.a. n.a. 13,838 

2016 .............................................................................................. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5,973 

2017 and future years .................................................................. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6,965 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

n.a.: not applicable. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section 308(a)(1)(C) of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional Budget 

Office has provided the following estimates of new budget authority 

and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for financial assistance to State and local governments: 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013 PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This Bill 

Budget 

Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to its 

subcommittees: Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2013 .......... n.a. n.a. 32,162 2 30,359 

n.a.: not applicable. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Pursuant to section 6(e) of the rules of the Committee on Appropriations, the following statement is submitted regarding the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the 

accompanying bill: 

The principal constitutional authority for this legislation is 

clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution of the United 

States (the appropriation power), which states: ‘‘No Money shall be 

drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations 

made by Law . . .’’ In addition, clause 1 of section 8 of article I of 

the Constitution (the spending power) provides: ‘‘The Congress 

shall have the Power . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the 

common Defense and general welfare of the United States . . .’’ Together, these specific constitutional provisions establish the congressional power of the purse, granting Congress the authority to 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
145 

appropriate funds, to determine their purpose, amount, and period 

of availability and to set forth terms and conditions governing their 

use. 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) 

AUTHORITY

The following table provides a detailed summary, for each department and agency, comparing the amounts recommended in the 

bill with fiscal year 2012 enacted amounts and budget estimates 

presented for fiscal year 2013: 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
146 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 here HR541.001
147 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 here HR541.002
148 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 here HR541.003
149 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 here HR541.004
150 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 here HR541.005
151 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 here HR541.006
152 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 here HR541.007
153 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 here HR541.008
154 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 here HR541.009
155 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 here HR541.010
156 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 here HR541.011
157 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 here HR541.012
158 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 here HR541.013
159 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 here HR541.014
160 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 here HR541.015
161 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 here HR541.016
162 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 here HR541.017
163 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 here HR541.018
164 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 here HR541.019
165 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 here HR541.020
(166) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

Despite an inadequate allocation and a broken authorization 

process, Chairman Latham and Chairman Rogers have made a respectable effort to draft a bill that acknowledges the transportation 

and housing needs facing our nation. 

The agreement obtained in last year’s Budget Control Act was 

hard fought but fair. Unfortunately, the House Republicans have 

walked away from the bipartisan, bicameral discretionary spending 

levels that were established for fiscal year 2013. The Committee’s 

overall discretionary allocation for fiscal year 2013 falls $19 billion 

below the $1.047 trillion level that was agreed to by a majority of 

the House Republican conference less than a year ago. By reneging 

on the agreement, House Republicans put themselves at odds with 

House Democrats, the White House, Senate Democrats, and Senate 

Republicans. This has created uncertainty about the discretionary 

allocation, and about whether the House majority will threaten to 

shut down the government. This uncertainty will slow down the appropriations process and the austere House allocation, if it stands, 

will stall economic growth and impede job creation. 

With a looming June 30th expiration date on the surface transportation reauthorization bill, the Congress will likely be forced to 

pass the tenth short-term extension or shut down the highway and 

transit programs during the height of construction season. The 

stalled authorization process has compelled the Chairman to freeze 

funding for roads, bridges and public transportation systems at last 

year’s levels at a time when unemployment in the construction sector stands at 14.2 percent and our infrastructure is in desperate 

need of repair and expansion. 

On the housing side of this bill, the situation isn’t much better. 

Many programs in this area have been unauthorized for more than 

a decade. Of note, the authorizing committee has considered reform 

proposals to the Section Eight program since the 108th Congress. 

This bill assumes savings contained in the most current version of 

that proposal. We urge the authorizing committee to report a bipartisan reform bill this Session. If the authorizing committee fails to 

act, many programs contained in this bill will be short funded. We 

will continue to monitor the progress of this legislation and will 

work with the Chairman to develop alternatives if this legislation 

fails to materialize. 

The funding levels in this bill keep some key programs moving 

ahead but miss many opportunities to boost the economy by investing in our deteriorating infrastructure. DOT’s most recent Conditions and Performance Report quantified the annual investment 

gap to maintain our current system of highways and bridges in a 

state of good repair at $27 billion and an annual gap of $96 billion 

to expand the system to meet the needs of a population that grows 

10 percent each decade. The state of transit isn’t much better, 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
167 

where the estimated state of good repair backlog is nearly $78 billion. 

As our metropolitan areas continue to grow, we must build public 

transportation alternatives that allow people to get from home to 

work seamlessly and efficiently. While the bill provides adequate 

funding to advance major transit projects currently under construction, it effectively shuts downs the planning and development pipeline for new subway, light rail and fixed guideway transit systems. 

We will work to improve the funding levels for the Federal Transit 

Administration’s capital investment grant program as the bill 

moves through the process. 

The funding level for Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) is 

a clear example of the consequences of the lower spending cap. The 

Administration requested $8.7 billion to renew PBRA contracts. 

Fully funding these contracts would require an additional $1.2 billion. The Administration’s proposal would fund one third of the 

contracts for a full year and two thirds for less than a year. The 

bill endorses this shortsighted approach; we do not. 

Partial year contracts for PBRA merely shift costs from one fiscal 

year to the next—a larger amount is due next year. When Congress 

adopted this policy in the past, it resulted in a $2 billion hole; 

funds included in the Recovery Act made this account whole. Partial year contracts create uncertainty for the businesses that own 

these properties and their employees. Uncertainty commands a 

high cost in the market. It makes little sense for Congress to endorse a policy that increases costs and threatens our nation’s economic recovery. We look forward to working with the Chairman to 

correct this error as we move forward. 

We are also disappointed that the bill provides zero funding for 

the Sustainable Communities Initiative. This program provides resources to perform regional planning activities that are not eligible 

under other existing HUD programs such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). The first two years of this program 

have demonstrated its versatility. Communities that overlap local 

and state governmental boundaries have partnered and utilized the 

flexibility of the Sustainable Communities planning grants to determine what the right mix of housing, transportation and infrastructure investments are within their region. This approach fosters job growth and meets the demands of a growing population. 

The Chairman should be commended for some noteworthy bright 

spots in a number of transportation and housing programs. First, 

the bill makes important investments in the operating, capital and 

research activities of the Federal Aviation Administration. Our air 

traffic control system is operating with equipment and facilities 

that are, in many instances, more than forty years old. The bill 

provides adequate resources to advance key programs within the 

FAA’s NextGen program to ensure that the United States remains 

a global leader in aviation. In addition, the bill includes critical 

funding to expand the research on engines, airframes and fuels to 

improve the efficiency of aircraft. 

We strongly support the funding levels in the bill for Amtrak. 

The Chairman has established an innovative new $500 million 

grant program to make state of good repair investments on rail 

lines that serve both intercity and commuter rail passengers. These 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
168 

funds will help put construction workers on the job, repair aging 

bridge and tunnel infrastructure, and ultimately improve the service and reliability for those Americans that rely on rail travel. 

The bill fully funds the next round of the successful Veterans Af- fairs Supportive Housing program at $75 million and moves America forward in our goal of ending veterans’ homelessness. The $3.3 

billion for Community Development Block Grants and $1.2 billion 

for the HOME program will provide needed funds to rebuild and 

strengthen our communities. Robust allocations for the Housing for 

the Elderly and Disabled programs will provide needed new units. 

Finally, we are pleased that the Committee adopted an amend- ment offered by Mr. Price which would reallocate $83.5 million in 

unspent magnetic levitation deployment funds to eliminate hazards 

at railway-highway grade crossings on high speed rail corridors. 

Last year, there were 236 crashes at railway-highway grade crossings which resulted in more than 260 fatalities. These funds will 

help improve safety at grade crossings and increase rail speeds on 

high speed rail corridors. 

We thank Chairman Latham for his work on this bill. The Chairman has encouraged an open and collaborative process to include 

views from all members of the subcommittee and we commend him 

for that. We look forward to perfecting this bill as the process 

moves forward. 

NORMAN D. DICKS. 

JOHN W. OLVER. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING