```

[Senate Report 113-182]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 412
113th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     113-182

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

 
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                       APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2015
                                _______
                                

                  June 5, 2014.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                                 REPORT

                         [To accompany S. 2438]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2438) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and 
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, 
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2015

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $54,439,000,000
Amount of 2014 appropriations...........................  50,856,000,000
Amount of 2015 budget estimate\1\.......................  50,975,337,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
    2014 appropriations.................................  +3,583,000,000
    2015 budget estimate................................  +3,463,663,000

\1\The budget estimate proposed converting $4,287,000,000 associated 
with certain surface transportation programs previously treated as 
budget authority into obligation limits. The Committee recommendation 
does not reclassify the funding for these programs.

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Overview and Summary of the Bill.................................     3
Program, Project, and Activity...................................     4
Reprogramming Guidelines.........................................     4
Congressional Budget Justifications..............................     5
Title I: Department of Transportation:
    Office of the Secretary......................................     8
    Federal Aviation Administration..............................    25
    Federal Highway Administration...............................    46
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration..................    56
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...............    62
    Federal Railroad Administration..............................    69
    Federal Transit Administration...............................    75
    Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation................    85
    Maritime Administration......................................    86
    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.......    92
    Office of Inspector General..................................    97
    Surface Transportation Board.................................    98
    General Provisions--Department of Transportation.............    98
Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
    Management and Administration................................   101
    Administrative Support Offices...............................   101
    Program Offices Salaries and Expenses........................   103
    Public and Indian Housing....................................   107
    Community Planning and Development...........................   123
    Housing Programs.............................................   130
    Federal Housing Administration...............................   135
    Government National Mortgage Association.....................   138
    Policy Development and Research..............................   139
    Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity...........................   140
    Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes..............   141
    Information Technology Fund..................................   142
    Office of Inspector General..................................   143
    Transformation Initiative....................................   144
    General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban 
      Development................................................   147
Title III: Independent Agencies:
    Access Board.................................................   150
    Federal Maritime Commission..................................   151
    National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Office of Inspector 
      General....................................................   151
    National Transportation Safety Board.........................   152
    Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................   153
    United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............   155
Title IV: General Provisions--This Act...........................   157
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   159
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   160
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   161
Budgetary Impact of Bill.........................................   178
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................   179

                    OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL

    The Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and 
Related Agencies appropriations bill provides funding for a 
wide array of Federal programs, mostly in the Departments of 
Transportation [DOT] and Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. 
These programs include investment in road, transit, rail, 
maritime, and airport infrastructure; the operation of the 
Nation's air traffic control system; housing assistance for 
those in need, including the homeless, elderly, and disabled; 
resources to support community planning and development; 
activities to improve road, rail, and pipeline safety; and a 
wide range of research efforts.
    The bill also provides funding for the Federal Housing 
Administration and Government National Mortgage Association to 
continue their traditional roles of providing access to 
affordable homeownership in the United States.
    The programs and activities supported by this bill include 
significant responsibilities entrusted to the Federal 
Government and its partners to protect human health and safety, 
support a vibrant economy, and achieve policy objectives 
strongly supported by the American people. The funding provided 
in this bill supports the investments necessary for a strong 
and economically competitive Nation. The ability to fulfill 
these responsibilities and make important investments is made 
challenging by pressure on available levels of discretionary 
spending as a consequence of the overall public debate on 
Federal spending, revenues, and size of the Federal debt.
    This bill makes the operation of the interstate highway 
system possible, as well as the world's safest air 
transportation system. It ensures safe and sanitary housing for 
5.4 million low and extremely low-income families and 
individuals, over half of whom are elderly and/or disabled. It 
provides funding that is leading to the gradual elimination of 
homelessness among veterans. This bill also includes funding 
for competitive grants to communities to support transportation 
infrastructure projects of national or regional importance.
    In the context of overall pressures on spending and the 
competing priorities that the Committee faces, this bill, as 
reported, provides the proper amount of emphasis on 
transportation, housing, community development, and other 
programs and activities funded within it. It is consistent with 
the subcommittee's allocation for fiscal year 2015. All 
accounts in the bill have been closely examined to ensure that 
an appropriate level of funding is provided to carry out the 
programs of DOT, HUD, and related agencies. Details on each of 
the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's 
justifications for the funding levels are included in the 
report.

                     PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

    During fiscal year 2015, for the purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained 
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and 
activity'' [PPA] shall mean any item for which a dollar amount 
is contained in appropriations acts (including joint 
resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or 
accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint 
explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This 
definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget 
(obligational) authority is provided, as well as to 
discretionary grants and discretionary grant allocations made 
through either bill or report language. For example, the 
percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to 
funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal 
Aviation Administration, would be applied equally to each 
budget item that is listed under said account in the budget 
justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations acts 
and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or 
joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference.

                        REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

    The Committee includes a provision (section 405) 
establishing the authority by which funding available to the 
agencies funded by this act may be reprogrammed for other 
purposes. The provision specifically requires the advanced 
approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
of any proposal to reprogram funds that:
  --creates a new program;
  --eliminates a program, project, or activity [PPA];
  --increases funds or personnel for any PPA for which funds 
        have been denied or restricted by the Congress;
  --proposes to redirect funds that were directed in such 
        reports for a specific activity to a different purpose;
  --augments an existing PPA in excess of $5,000,000 or 10 
        percent, whichever is less;
  --reduces an existing PPA by $5,000,000 or 10 percent, 
        whichever is less; or
  --creates, reorganizes, or restructures offices different 
        from the congressional budget justifications or the 
        table at the end of the Committee report, whichever is 
        more detailed.
    The Committee retains the requirement that each agency 
submit an operating plan to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations not later than 60 days after enactment of this 
act to establish the baseline for application of reprogramming 
and transfer authorities provided in this act. Specifically, 
each agency should provide a table for each appropriation with 
columns displaying the prior year enacted level; budget 
request; adjustments made by Congress; adjustments for 
rescissions, if appropriate; and the fiscal year enacted level. 
The table shall delineate the appropriation and prior year 
enacted level both by object class and by PPA, as well as 
identify balances available for use under section 406 of the 
bill. The report must also identify items of special 
congressional interest.
    The Committee expects the agencies and bureaus to submit 
reprogramming requests in a timely manner and to provide a 
thorough explanation of the proposed reallocations, including a 
detailed justification of increases and reductions and the 
specific impact the proposed changes will have on the budget 
request for the following fiscal year. Except in emergency 
situations, reprogramming requests should be submitted no later 
than June 30.
    The Committee expects each agency to manage its programs 
and activities within the amounts appropriated by Congress. The 
Committee reminds agencies that reprogramming requests should 
be submitted only in the case of an unforeseeable emergency or 
a situation that could not have been anticipated when 
formulating the budget request for the current fiscal year. 
Further, the Committee notes that when a Department or agency 
submits a reprogramming or transfer request to the Committees 
on Appropriations and does not receive identical responses from 
the House and Senate, it is the responsibility of the 
Department to reconcile the House and Senate differences before 
proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, to consider 
the request to reprogram funds unapproved.
    The Committee would also like to clarify that this section 
applies to the Department of Transportation's Working Capital 
Fund, and that no funds may be obligated from such funds to 
augment programs, projects or activities for which 
appropriations have been specifically rejected by the Congress, 
or to increase funds or personnel for any PPA above the amounts 
appropriated by this act.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

    Budget justifications are the primary tool used by the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations to evaluate the 
resource requirements and fiscal needs of agencies. The 
Committee is aware that the format and presentation of budget 
materials is largely left to the agency within presentation 
objectives set forth by OMB. In fact, OMB Circular A-11, part 6 
specifically states that the ``agency should consult with your 
congressional committees beforehand to ensure their awareness 
of your plans to modify the format of agency budget 
documents.'' The Committee expects that all agencies funded 
under this act will heed this directive. The Committee expects 
all of the budget justifications to provide the data needed to 
make appropriate and meaningful funding decisions.
    While the Committee values the inclusion of performance 
data and presentations, it is important to ensure that vital 
budget information that the Committee needs is not lost. 
Therefore, the Committee directs that justifications submitted 
with the fiscal year 2016 budget request by agencies funded 
under this act contain the customary level of detailed data and 
explanatory statements to support the appropriations requests 
at the level of detail contained in the funding table included 
at the end of the report. Among other items, agencies shall 
provide a detailed discussion of proposed new initiatives, 
proposed changes in the agency's financial plan from prior year 
enactment, and detailed data on all programs and comprehensive 
information on any office or agency restructurings. At a 
minimum, each agency must also provide adequate justification 
for funding and staffing changes for each individual office and 
materials that compare programs, projects, and activities that 
are proposed for fiscal year 2016 to the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level.
    The Committee is aware that the analytical materials 
required for review by the Committee are unique to each agency 
in this act. Therefore, the Committee expects that the each 
agency will coordinate with the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations in advance on its planned presentation for its 
budget justification materials in support of the fiscal year 
2016 budget request.

                         INCREASING EFFICIENCY

    The departments, agencies, boards, and commissions funded 
in this bill can and should continue to reduce operating 
expenses by placing greater scrutiny on overhead costs. Savings 
can and should be achieved by reducing non-essential travel, 
office supply, rent, and utility costs. The Committee directs 
each department, agency, board, and commission funded in this 
bill to develop a plan to reduce such costs by at least 10 
percent in fiscal year 2015. Plans to achieve these savings in 
fiscal year 2015 should be submitted to the Committee no later 
than 30 days after enactment of this act.

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    The Solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and Authorization of 
Transportation Program.--This year, the Committee is in the 
position of recommending funding levels for Federal highway, 
transit, and highway and truck safety programs without any 
assurances that sufficient balances will be available from the 
Highway Trust Fund to support these programs, even at the 
funding levels enacted for the current year. Furthermore, the 
Committee is conducting its work without any certainty that the 
necessary contract authority will be available for the whole of 
fiscal year 2015.
    The situation of the Highway Trust Fund is especially 
precarious. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the 
Department of Transportation project that current balances of 
the highway and transit accounts of the Highway Trust Fund will 
be depleted before the end of fiscal year 2015. In fact, the 
Department of Transportation projects that the balances of the 
trust fund's highway account to reach critical levels in July 
of this year. At that point, the Department expects it will 
have to delay reimbursements to States who have spent their own 
funds on eligible highway projects.
    When the Department of Transportation is forced to delay 
its reimbursements, then the Federal Government has failed to 
uphold its commitments to the State and local governments that 
rely on these transportation programs to support their 
communities. Because the highway program works on a 
reimbursable basis, States work closely with the Department of 
Transportation before beginning a project to ensure that it is 
eligible for Federal funding. As work is completed on a 
project, State agencies use their own money to pay contractors 
the full cost of the work, knowing that the Federal Government 
has agreed to pay its share in a timely manner. The State 
submits vouchers to the Department of Transportation for the 
Federal share of the work, which is usually reimbursed on the 
same day that the voucher is submitted. However, these 
reimbursements are paid out of the Highway Trust Fund. If we do 
not protect the solvency of the trust fund, then we suddenly 
leave State governments bearing the full cost of these 
transportation projects.
    This partnership between Federal and State governments has 
been a fundamental part of building and maintaining our 
highways for almost 100 years. Today, however, many States are 
deciding that they cannot rely on the Federal Government this 
summer. They are bracing for a shortfall in the Highway Trust 
Fund by delaying construction projects that would have 
supported jobs and improved their transportation systems.
    The funding of most surface transportation programs also 
relies on the availability of contract authority, which expires 
under current law at the end of the current fiscal year. The 
Administration has released its proposal for authorizing these 
programs over the next 4 years, and the relevant authorizing 
committees are putting together their legislation. 
Unfortunately, it is still not clear if the levels of contract 
authority for the next fiscal year will be enacted as part of a 
multi-year authorization law, a short-term extension that 
covers all of fiscal year 2015, or a series of short-term 
extensions that eventually cover the whole fiscal year. What is 
clear is that the use of short-term extensions has only served 
to exacerbate the insecurity felt by State and local 
governments that rely on Federal transportation programs for 
investing in their communities.
    The Committee has spoken on these issues many times in 
recent years. Committee reports have repeatedly called for 
bringing long-term solvency to the Highway Trust Fund, and for 
4 years in a row, the Committee has recommended funding levels 
without knowing when the necessary contract authority would be 
enacted.
    In the meantime, the Committee must fulfill its 
responsibility to recommend appropriate funding levels for 
offices and programs at the Department of Transportation. In 
order to put forward realistic funding recommendations, the 
Committee is assuming that authorization for transportation 
programs will be extended through fiscal year 2015 at the 
levels authorized for fiscal year 2014. This assumption is 
consistent with recent extensions of the transportation 
programs. This assumption is especially relevant for those 
programs that rely on contract authority provided in the 
authorization acts, including the Federal-aid Highways program, 
the formula and bus transit programs, the programs of the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and most funding 
for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    Crimea.--The Committee remains concerned about the Russian 
aggression in Ukraine, Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, 
and Russia's illegal and unacceptable efforts to exploit stolen 
Crimean resources, and urges that none of the funds in this act 
be used to recognize, or imply recognition of, the sovereignty 
of the Russian Federation over Crimea, its territory, airspace, 
or territorial waters.

                        Office of the Secretary

    Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of 
October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-670) provides for the 
establishment of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation 
[OST]. The Office of the Secretary is comprised of the 
Secretary and the Deputy Secretary immediate and support 
offices; the Office of the General Counsel; the Office of the 
Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, including the 
offices of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 
International Affairs and the Assistant Secretary for 
Transportation Policy; four Assistant Secretarial offices for 
Budget and Programs, Governmental Affairs, Research and 
Technology, and Administration; and the Offices of Public 
Affairs, the Executive Secretariat, Small and Disadvantaged 
Business Utilization, Intelligence, Security and Emergency 
Response, and Chief Information Officer. The Office of the 
Secretary also includes the Department's Office of Civil Rights 
and the Department's Working Capital Fund.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $107,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     109,916,000
Committee recommendation................................     108,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation finances the costs of policy development 
and central supervisory and coordinating functions necessary 
for the overall planning and direction of the Department. It 
covers the immediate secretarial offices as well as those of 
the assistant secretaries, and the general counsel.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $108,000,000 for 
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and 
representation expenses. The recommendation is $1,916,000 less 
than the budget request and $1,000,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level. The accompanying bill stipulates that 
none of the funding provided may be used for the position of 
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.
    The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer 
up to 5 percent of the funds from any office within the Office 
of the Secretary to another. The Committee recommendation also 
continues language that permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be 
credited to the Office of the Secretary for salaries and 
expenses.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2014 enacted 
level and the budget request:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2014 enacted    2015 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary......................................       $2,652,000       $2,696,000       $2,696,000
Office of the Deputy Secretary...............................        1,000,000        1,011,000        1,011,000
Office of the General Counsel................................       19,900,000       20,312,000       19,980,000
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy...       10,271,000       10,417,000       10,300,000
Office of the Assistance Secretary for Budget and Programs...       12,676,000       13,111,000       12,676,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs...        2,530,000        2,567,000        2,500,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.........       26,378,000       27,420,000       27,131,000
Office of Public Affairs.....................................        2,020,000        2,061,000        2,000,000
Office of the Executive Secretariat..........................        1,714,000        1,746,000        1,714,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.......        1,386,000        1,414,000        1,414,000
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response.....       10,778,000       11,055,000       10,778,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer......................       15,695,000       16,106,000       15,800,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................      107,000,000      109,916,000      108,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Secretary of Transportation provides leadership and has 
the primary responsibility to provide overall planning, 
direction, and control of the Department.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $2,696,000 for fiscal year 2015 
for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation 
is equal to the budget request and $44,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level.

                IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility of 
assisting the Secretary in the overall planning and direction 
of the Department.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,011,000 for the Immediate 
Office of the Deputy Secretary, which is equal to the budget 
request and $11,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted 
level.

                     OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services 
to the Office of the Secretary, including the conduct of 
aviation regulatory proceedings and aviation consumer 
activities, and coordinates and reviews the legal work in the 
chief counsels' offices of the operating administrations. The 
General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the Department of 
Transportation and the final authority within the Department on 
all legal questions.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $19,980,000 for expenses of the 
Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2015. The 
recommended funding level is $332,000 less than the budget 
request and $80,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted 
level.
    Mobile Wireless Devices.--On February 24, 2014, the 
Department published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(Docket No. DOT-OST-2014-0002) regarding the use of mobile 
wireless devices for voice calls on commercial aircraft. The 
approval of voice communication over mobile wireless devices 
during commercial airline flights would be problematic for many 
of the two million Americans who fly each day and challenging 
for the airlines. The Committee directs the Department to 
complete its rulemaking expeditiously and put in place a clear 
rule that takes into account the full impact on consumers and 
the commercial aviation industry.

       OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Under Secretary for Policy is the chief policy officer 
of the Department and is responsible to the Secretary for the 
analysis, development, and review of policies and plans for 
domestic and international transportation matters. The Office 
administers the economic regulatory functions regarding the 
airline industry and is responsible for international aviation 
programs, the essential air service program, airline fitness 
licensing, acquisitions, international route awards, 
computerized reservation systems, and special investigations, 
such as airline delays.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $10,300,000 for the Office of the 
Under Secretary for Policy. The recommended funding level is 
$117,000 less than the budget request and $29,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

       OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs serves as 
the Chief Financial Officer for the Department and provides 
leadership on all financial management matters. The primary 
responsibilities of this office include ensuring the 
development and justification of the Department's annual budget 
submissions for consideration by the Office of Management and 
Budget and the Congress. The office is also responsible for the 
proper execution and accountability of these resources. In 
addition, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer for the 
Office of the Secretary is located within the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $12,676,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The recommended 
level is $435,000 less than the budget request and equal to the 
fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

       OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises 
the Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental 
activities and on all departmental legislative initiatives and 
other relationships with Members of Congress. The Assistant 
Secretary promotes effective communication with other Federal 
agencies and regional Department officials, and with State and 
local governments and national organizations for development of 
departmental programs; and ensures that consumer preferences, 
awareness, and needs are brought into the decisionmaking 
process.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $2,500,000 for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The 
recommended level is $67,000 less than the budget request and 
$30,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

          OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible 
for establishing policies and procedures, setting guidelines, 
working with the operating administrations to improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the Department in human 
resource management, security and administrative management, 
real and personal property management, and acquisition and 
grants management.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $27,131,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding 
level is $289,000 less than the budget request and $753,000 
more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    Response to the Government Accountability Office.--The 
Committee understands that although the Government 
Accountability Office [GAO], consistent with generally accepted 
Government auditing standards, provides the Secretary of 
Transportation with the opportunity to give substantive 
comments on draft GAO reports before they are issued, the 
Secretary's longstanding practice has been to decline to 
provide such comments. In particular, the Committee understands 
that the Secretary routinely declines to state the Department's 
position on whether it agrees or disagrees with GAO 
recommendations for agency action and the rationale for any 
disagreement. The Committee has therefore included a provision 
in title IV that requires all agencies and departments funded 
in the act to respond to GAO recommendations in a timely 
manner.

                        OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Director of Public Affairs is the principal advisor to 
the Secretary and other senior departmental officials on public 
affairs questions. The Office is responsible for managing the 
Secretary's presence in the media, writing speeches and press 
releases, and preparing the Secretary for public appearances. 
The Office arranges media events and news conferences, and 
responds to media inquiries on the Department's programs and 
other transportation-related issues. It also provides 
information to the Secretary on the opinions and reactions of 
the public and news media on these programs and issues.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Office of 
Public Affairs, which is $61,000 less than the budget request 
and $20,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

                         EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and the 
Deputy Secretary in carrying out their management functions and 
responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and 
external written materials.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,714,000 for the Executive 
Secretariat. The recommendation is $32,000 less than the budget 
request and equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

         OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
has primary responsibility for providing policy direction for 
small and disadvantaged business participation in the 
Department's procurement and grant programs, and effective 
execution of the functions and duties under sections 8 and 15 
of the Small Business Act, as amended.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,414,000, an amount that is 
equal to the budget request and $28,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level.

        OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response 
ensures the development, coordination, and execution of plans 
and procedures for the Department of Transportation to balance 
transportation security requirements with the safety, mobility, 
and economic needs of the Nation. The Office keeps the 
Secretary and his advisors apprised of current developments and 
long-range trends in international issues, including terrorism, 
aviation, trade, transportation markets, and trade agreements. 
The Office also advises the Department's leaders on policy 
issues related to intelligence, threat information sharing, 
national security strategies and national preparedness and 
response planning.
    To ensure the Department is able to respond in disasters, 
the Office prepares for and coordinates the Department's 
participation in national and regional exercises and training 
for emergency personnel. The Office also administers the 
Department's Continuity of Government and Continuity of 
Operations programs and initiatives. Additionally, the Office 
provides direct emergency response and recovery support through 
the National Response Framework and operates the Department's 
Crisis Management Center. The center monitors the Nation's 
transportation system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and is the 
Department's focal point during emergencies.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $10,778,000 for the Office of 
Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response. The 
recommendation is $277,000 less than the budget request and 
equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

                OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of the Chief Information Officer serves as the 
principal adviser to the Secretary on matters involving 
information technology, cybersecurity, privacy, and records 
management.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $15,800,000, which is $306,000 
less than the budget request and $105,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level.

                        RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $14,765,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      14,625,000
Committee recommendation................................      13,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,500,000 
for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and 
Technology. This amount is $1,125,000 less than the budget 
request, and $1,265,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted 
level. The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the budget request and the 
fiscal year 2014 enacted level:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2014 enacted    2015 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Administrative Expenses.........................       $6,547,000       $6,407,000       $5,491,000
Research, Development and Technology Coordination............          509,000          509,000          300,000
Alternative Energy Research and Development..................          499,000          499,000          499,000
Positioning, Navigation and Timing...........................        1,610,000        1,610,000        1,610,000
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System............        5,600,000        5,600,000        5,600,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................       14,765,000       14,625,000       13,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    University Transportation Centers.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $72,500,000 for University 
Transportation Centers. This funding is provided through the 
Federal Highway Administration, and the level is consistent 
with the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.
    Small Business Innovation Research.--The Small Business 
Innovation Research [SBIR] program encourages domestic small 
businesses to engage in Federal research or research and 
development activities that have the potential for 
commercialization. The Volpe Center directs the Department's 
SBIR program due to its extensive background in innovative 
programs such as technology transfer, cooperative research and 
development agreements, outreach projects involving a cross-
section of the transportation community, and technical 
assistance to private organizations and State and local 
governments. The Committee recognizes the importance of the 
SBIR program and its success in commercialization from Federal 
funded research and development projects. Through its work, the 
SBIR program creates jobs in the smallest firms. The Committee 
therefore encourages the Department to place an increased focus 
on awarding SBIR awards to firms with fewer than 50 people. In 
addition, the Committee directs the Department to take steps to 
ensure that SBIR spending levels meet or exceed statutory 
requirements.

                  NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $600,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................   1,250,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     550,000,000

\1\The administration included these funds in its budget request, but 
classified them as mandatory spending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This program provides grants and credit assistance to State 
and local governments, transit agencies, or a collaboration of 
such entities for capital investments in surface transportation 
infrastructure that will have a significant impact on the 
Nation, a metropolitan area or a region. Eligible projects 
include highways and bridges, public transportation, freight 
and passenger rail, and port infrastructure. The Department 
awards grants on a competitive basis; however, the Department 
must ensure an equitable geographic distribution of funds and 
an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and 
rural communities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $550,000,000 for 
grants and credit assistance for investment in significant 
transportation projects, which is $50,000,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The administration assumed that 
this program would be funded as a part of comprehensive 
legislation to reauthorize surface transportation programs, and 
classified the funding as mandatory spending. The Committee, 
however, does not expect the enactment of legislation that 
funds this program on the mandatory side of the budget, and so 
provides its funding recommendation in order to continue 
investment in these important transportation projects.
    Management Review by the Government Accountability 
Offices.--On May 28, the Government Accountability Office [GAO] 
issued a management report following its review of how the 
Department provided grants in fiscal year 2013 under this 
heading. GAO wrote in support of the grant program, saying, 
``In prior work, we have recommended that a merit-based 
competitive approach be used to direct a portion of Federal 
funds to transportation projects of national and regional 
significance.'' GAO offers recommendations as a way to 
strengthen the program by taking measures to improve its 
accountability. Specifically, GAO recommends that the 
Department establish clear policies on how applications 
submitted after the deadline are treated, and on how program 
managers document major decisions in the application evaluation 
and project selection process.
    In its response to GAO's report, the Department recognized 
the value of GAO's recommendations and described specific steps 
it has already undertaken to implement them. The Department 
also acknowledged that it experienced challenges during the 
fiscal year 2013 process, including technical difficulties with 
the grants.gov Web site, the loss of key members of the 
program's leadership team, and a compressed schedule caused by 
a late appropriation and an obligation deadline of less than 18 
months. The Committee appreciates that the program now has a 
strong leadership team that is committed to the program's 
accountability, and the Committee urges the Department to 
implement all of the promised improvements. In addition, the 
Committee has lengthened the amount of time that TIGER funds 
are available for obligation, ensuring that the Department will 
have the time necessary to conduct a responsible competition 
and fully document its process without making compromises due 
to time constraints.
    Planning Activities.--The Committee recommendation includes 
up to $35,000,000 for the planning, preparation or design of 
projects eligible for funding under this heading.
    Protections for Rural Areas.--The Committee continues to 
believe that our Federal infrastructure programs must benefit 
communities across the country. For this reason, the Committee 
continues to require the Secretary to award grants and credit 
assistance in a manner that ensures an equitable geographic 
distribution of funds and an appropriate balance in addressing 
the needs of urban and rural communities.
    Investing in infrastructure in rural America is extremely 
important for growing the economy, increasing exports and 
expanding markets. For this reason, the Committee also set 
aside no less than 20 percent of the program's funding for 
projects located in rural areas, and included specific 
provisions to match grant requirements with the needs of rural 
areas. Specifically, the Committee has lowered the minimum size 
of a grant awarded to a rural area and increased the Federal 
share of the total project cost.

                      FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriations, 2014....................................      $7,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................       5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Financial Management Capital program is a multi-year 
business transformation initiative to streamline and 
standardize the financial systems and business processes across 
the Department. The initiative includes upgrading and enhancing 
the commercial software used for DOT's financial systems, 
improving the cost and performance data provided to managers, 
and instituting new accounting standards and mandates.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee is recommending $5,000,000 to complete the 
Secretary's Financial Management Capital initiative, which is 
equal to the budget request and $2,000,000 less than the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level.

                       CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2014....................................      $4,455,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................       5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Cyber Security Initiative is an effort to close 
performance gaps in the Department's cybersecurity. The 
initiative includes support for essential program enhancements, 
infrastructure improvements and contractual resources to 
enhance the security of the Department's computer network and 
reduce the risk of security breaches.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to support 
the Secretary's Cyber Security Initiative, which is equal to 
the budget request and $545,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level.

                         OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2014....................................      $9,551,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................       9,600,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,600,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the 
Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity 
matters, formulating civil rights policies and procedures for 
the operating administrations, investigating claims that small 
businesses were denied certification or improperly certified as 
disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the 
Department's conduct of its civil rights responsibilities and 
making final determinations on civil rights complaints. In 
addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing 
laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally 
operated and federally assisted transportation programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a funding level of $9,600,000 for 
the Office of Civil Rights. The recommendation is equal to the 
budget request and $49,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level.

           TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2014....................................      $7,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................       8,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for transportation 
planning, research, and development, which is $1,000,000 less 
than the budget request and $2,000,000 less than the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level.
    Study on Air Quality in Rail Cars and Stations.--The 
Committee is aware of news reports that have found poor air 
quality in some diesel powered commuter rail cars and stations. 
The Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation to 
conduct a study of the air quality in passenger cars of 
commuter or intercity trains with diesel or diesel-electric 
locomotives and rail stations serviced by diesel or diesel-
electric locomotives, and determine cost-effective ways to 
reduce diesel emissions and improve air quality in these 
passenger cars and rail stations. The Secretary is encouraged 
to work with modal Administrators, commuter rail transit 
agencies, the public transportation industry, public health 
groups, the transportation research board and commuter rail 
worker organizations in conducting the study. The Secretary is 
directed to issue a report to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations no later than one year after enactment of 
this act on the findings of the study.

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2014........................................    $178,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................     182,000,000

\1\Proposed without limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Working Capital Fund provides technical and 
administrative services to the Department's operating 
administrations and other Federal entities. The services are 
centrally performed in the interest of economy and efficiency 
and are funded through negotiated agreements with Department 
operating administrations and other Federal customers and are 
billed on a fee-for-service basis to the maximum extent 
possible.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $182,000,000 on 
activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The 
recommended limit is $4,000,000 more than the limit enacted for 
fiscal year 2014. The Department requested that no limitation 
be included in the bill.
    As in past years, the bill specifies that the limitation on 
the Working Capital Fund shall apply only to the Department and 
not to services provided for other entities. The Committee 
directs that services shall be provided on a competitive basis 
to the maximum extent possible.
    The Committee notes that the ``transparency paper'' 
included in the justifications for fiscal year 2015 provides 
essential information on total budgetary resources for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and the 
Office of the Chief Information Officer, including the balance 
of resources provided through the Working Capital Fund and 
direct appropriations. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
Department to update this ``transparency paper'' and include it 
in the budget justifications for fiscal year 2016.

               MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Appropriations  guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014.................         $925,000      $18,367,000
Budget estimate, 2015................        1,013,000       18,367,000
Committee recommendation.............          925,000       18,367,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Minority Business Resource Center of the Office of 
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provides 
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital for 
disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The 
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime 
interest rates for transportation-related projects. As required 
by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records 
the subsidy costs associated with guaranteed loans for this 
program as well as administrative expenses of this program.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $333,000 to 
cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $592,000 for 
administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
program. These recommended levels add to a total funding level 
of $925,000 for the Minority Business Resource Center. This 
total funding level is $88,000 less than the budget estimate 
and equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The Committee 
also recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of 
$18,367,000, which is equal to the budget request and the 
fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    The Department requested an increase in funding to cover 
the subsidy cost and administrative expenses of this program. 
However, the current funding level still gives the Department 
sufficient room to cover an increase in the cost of providing 
each loan guarantee as well as growth in the overall size of 
the program. Should the funding level become a constraint to 
the program in the future, the Committee will revisit this 
issue.

                       MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2014....................................      $3,088,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................       3,099,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,099,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides contractual support to assist 
small, women-owned, Native American, and other disadvantaged 
business firms in securing contracts and subcontracts for 
transportation-related projects that involve Federal spending. 
Separate funding is provided for these activities since this 
program provides grants and contract assistance that serve 
Department-wide goals and not just OST purposes.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $3,099,000 for grants and 
contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year 
2015. The recommendation is equal to the budget request and 
$11,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

                        PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Appropriations   Mandatory\1\        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2014.............................................    $149,000,000    $120,640,000    $269,640,000
Budget estimate, 2015...........................................     155,000,000     106,000,000     261,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................     155,000,000     106,000,000     261,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Mandatory funding is supported by overflight fees provided to the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to
  section 41742 of title 49, United States Code.

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides funding for the Essential Air 
Service [EAS] program, which was created to continue air 
service to communities that had received federally mandated air 
service prior to deregulation of commercial aviation in 1978. 
The program currently provides subsidies to air carriers 
serving small communities that meet certain criteria.
    The Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] collects user 
fees that cover the air traffic control services the agency 
provides to aircraft that neither take off from, nor land in, 
the United States. These fees are commonly referred to as 
``overflight fees'', and the receipts from the fees are used to 
help finance the EAS program.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the appropriation of $155,000,000 
for the EAS program. This appropriation would be in addition to 
an estimated $106,000,000 of overflight fees collected by the 
Federal Aviation Administration, allowing the Department to 
support a total program level for EAS of about $261,000,000. 
The appropriation and the level of funding from overflight fees 
under the Committee's recommendation are both equal to the 
budget request. The total program level under the Committee's 
recommendation is $8,640,000 less than the total program level 
enacted for fiscal year 2014; the total program level enacted 
for that year was comprised of an appropriation of $149,000,000 
plus $120,640,000 in overflight fees.
    Proximity to the Nearest Hub Airport.--The Committee 
continues to include a provision that prohibits the Department 
from entering into a new contract with an EAS community located 
less than 40 miles from the nearest hub airport before the 
Secretary has negotiated with the community over a local cost 
share. This provision was first added in the fiscal year 2014 
Consolidated Appropriations Act.
    Aircraft Size Requirement.--The Committee continues to 
include a provision that removes the requirement for 15-
passenger seat aircraft, as requested by the Administration. 
This requirement adds to the cost of the EAS program because 
the fleet of 15-passenger seat aircraft continues to age and 
grow more difficult for airlines to maintain. The Committee, 
however, expects that the Department will use this flexibility 
judiciously. The Department should use it for communities where 
historical passenger levels indicate that smaller aircraft 
would still accommodate the great majority of passengers, or 
for communities where viable proposals for service are not 
available. The Committee does not expect the Department to use 
this flexibility simply to lower costs if a community can show 
regular enplanement levels that would justify larger aircraft.
    Passenger Levels and Subsidy Rates.--The table below 
reflects the points in the continental United States currently 
receiving EAS service, their annual subsidy rates, and their 
level of subsidy per passenger.

                                   ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Est. miles
                                            to nearest     Average     Annual subsidy    Passenger   Subsidy per
State            EAS communities            hub (S, M,  enplanements  rates at  6/1/13   totals at    passenger
                                              or L)        per day                        12/31/12    at 6/1/13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ALMuscle Shoals                                 60           6.3        $2,603,365        3,973         $655
  AREl Dorado/Camden                             117          12.4         1,977,153        7,742          255
  ARHarrison                                      86          17.6         2,251,207       11,017          204
  ARHot Springs                                   51           8.6         1,637,012        5,353          306
  ARJonesboro                                     82          15.6         1,942,890        9,796          198
  AZKingman                                      121           2.7         1,635,180        1,661          984
  AZPage                                         282          20.2         2,472,028       12,639          196
  AZPrescott                                     102          17.2         2,094,325       10,797          194
  AZShow Low                                     154          11.9         1,672,000        7,461          224
  CACrescent City                                231          40.4         1,996,959       25,279           79
  CAEl Centro                                    101           9.5         1,943,751        5,950          327
  CAMerced                                        60           7.7         1,698,878        4,810          353
  CAVisalia                                       47          10.8         1,697,929        6,762          251
  COAlamosa                                      164          22.3         2,078,676       13,941          149
  COCortez                                       255          26.1         2,240,766       16,336          137
  COPueblo                                        36          14.6         1,737,732        9,141          190
  GAAthens                                        72           5.9         1,630,410        3,681          443
  GAMacon                                         82           4.0         1,998,696        2,482          805
  IABurlington                                    74          20.8         1,917,566       12,994          148
  IAFort Dodge                                    91           9.4         1,798,693        5,868          307
  IAMason City                                   131          11.3         1,174,468        7,096          166
  IASioux City                                    88          80.7         1,512,799       50,509           30
  IAWaterloo                                      63          61.5         1,541,824       38,472           40
  ILDecatur                                      126          20.5         2,667,922       12,803          208
  ILMarion/Herrin                                123          32.1         2,104,616       20,099          105
  ILQuincy                                       111          33.1         1,956,856       20,728           94
  KSDodge City                                   150          18.7         1,688,598       11,712          144
  KSGarden City                                  202          73.4         2,919,026       45,951           64
  KSGreat Bend                                   114           3.2         1,082,020        1,983          546
  KSHays                                         166          28.9         2,164,041       18,068          120
  KSLiberal/Guymon                               138          19.3         2,555,150       12,099          211
  KSSalina                                        97           7.5         1,490,479        4,705          317
  KYOwensboro                                    105          12.4         1,529,913        7,738          198
  KYPaducah                                      146          63.8         2,034,160       39,962           51
  MDHagerstown                                    78           3.9         1,785,638        2,419          738
  MEAugusta/Waterville                            58          17.9         1,362,616       11,222          121
  MEBar Harbor                                   157          16.3         1,631,223       10,190          160
  MEPresque Isle/Houlton                         274          34.8         3,892,174       21,800          179
  MERockland                                      76          23.5         1,420,545       14,704           97
  MIAlpena                                       174          51.6         3,098,472       32,300           96
  MIEscanaba                                     227          46.0         2,833,558       28,803           98
  MIHancock/Houghton                             321          80.0           690,976       50,103           14
  MIIron Mountain/Kingsford                      229          30.0         2,512,971       18,766          134
  MIIronwood/Ashland                             213           8.1         1,747,326        5,066          345
  MIManistee/Ludington                           233           7.7         2,055,781        4,820          427
  MIMuskegon                                      49          50.5         1,389,952       31,631           44
  MIPellston                                     213          84.5         1,077,413       52,925           20
  MISault Ste. Marie                             347          67.3         1,765,393       42,130           42
  MNBemidji                                      128          70.6         1,118,050       44,220           25
  MNBrainerd                                     123          46.5         1,356,764       29,108           47
  MNChisholm/Hibbing                             199          33.6         2,517,770       21,060          120
  MNInternational Falls                          298          44.8         1,107,900       28,039           40
  MNThief River Falls                            305           6.9         1,881,815        4,323          435
  MOCape Girardeau/Sikeston                      127          19.4         1,627,966       12,160          134
  MOFort Leonard Wood                            136          26.9         2,905,794       16,811          173
  MOJoplin                                       167          75.2           342,560       47,095            7
  MOKirksville                                   137          18.1         1,649,248       11,357          145
  MSGreenville                                   124           9.3         3,522,398        5,836          604
  MSLaurel/Hattiesburg                            66          18.9         2,965,667       11,830          251
  MSMeridian                                      84          21.6         2,417,808       13,552          178
  MSTupelo                                        94          18.3         3,522,398       11,438          308
  MTButte                                         75          82.9           735,956       51,920           14
  MTGlasgow                                      285           6.5         2,046,800        4,057       \1\n/a
  MTGlendive                                     223           1.9         1,944,467        1,178       \1\n/a
  MTHavre                                        230           3.7         2,036,254        2,338       \1\n/a
  MTSidney                                       272          29.4         3,777,579       18,405       \1\n/a
  MTWest Yellowstone                              89          44.0           535,141       10,727           50
  MTWolf Point                                   293           8.7         2,145,326        5,473       \1\n/a
  NDDevils Lake                                  159           8.9         2,797,467        5,583          501
  NDJamestown                                     92           8.3         1,987,655        5,183          383
  NEAlliance                                     233           5.2         1,309,865        3,229          406
  NEChadron                                      290           7.2         1,309,865        4,515          290
  NEGrand Island                                 138          71.5         1,837,021       44,781           41
  NEKearney                                      181          42.2         1,752,904       26,389           66
  NEMcCook                                       256           6.2         1,976,338        3,877          510
  NENorth Platte                                 255          26.7         1,697,510       16,690          102
  NEScottsbluff                                  192          30.4         1,398,351       19,032           73
  NHLebanon/White River Jct.                      74          31.3         2,347,744       19,588          120
  NMCarlsbad                                     149           8.6         1,397,081        5,364          260
  NMClovis                                       102           5.0         1,954,490        3,143          622
  NMSilver City/Hurley/Deming                    134           4.5         2,098,460        2,803          749
  NYJamestown                                     76          10.1         1,940,272        6,321          307
  NYMassena                                      138          15.5         2,090,949        9,708          215
  NYOgdensburg                                   105          17.0         1,702,697       10,647          160
  NYPlattsburgh                                   82          23.6         2,470,834       14,748          168
  NYSaranac Lake/Lake Placid                     132          16.9         1,832,064       10,552          174
  NYWatertown                                     54          61.2         3,356,349       38,282           88
  ORPendleton                                    185          13.6         1,834,708        8,524          215
  PAAltoona                                      112          12.5         1,998,594        7,830          255
  PABradford                                      77           6.9         1,940,272        4,292          452
  PADuBois                                       112          15.6         2,587,029        9,793          264
  PAFranklin/Oil City                             85           5.0         1,293,515        3,134          413
  PAJohnstown                                     84          19.6         1,998,594       12,287          163
  PALancaster                                     28           6.3         2,504,174        3,943          635
  PRMayaguez                                     105          17.3         1,198,824       10,802          111
  SDAberdeen                                     176          80.2         1,043,719       50,202           21
  SDHuron                                        121           5.6         1,929,349        3,485          554
  SDWatertown                                    102          14.2         1,710,324        8,872          193
  TNJackson                                       86           7.8         1,115,210        4,865          229
  TXVictoria                                      93          10.4         2,294,036        6,518          352
  UTCedar City                                   179          37.9         2,317,439       23,716           98
  UTMoab                                         256          13.8         2,303,347        8,635          267
  UTVernal                                       150          26.6         1,415,696       16,660           85
  VAStaunton                                     113          45.1         3,394,629       28,203          120
  VTRutland                                       69          17.3         1,360,481       10,827          126
  WIEau Claire                                    92          62.5         1,546,536       39,104           40
  WIRhinelander                                  190          53.5         1,519,619       33,471           45
  WVBeckley                                      168          12.0         2,512,494        7,502          335
  WVClarksburg/Fairmont                           96          18.8         1,728,125       11,784          147
  WVGreenbrier/W.Sulphur Sps                     162          21.9         3,484,710       13,698          254
  WVMorgantown                                    75          32.6         1,728,125       20,381           85
  WVParkersburg/Marietta                         110          26.1         2,587,029       16,357          158
  WYCody                                         106          43.0         1,380,779       26,909           51
  WYLaramie                                      145          35.3         1,635,346       22,085           74
  WYWorland                                      161           8.9         1,987,148        5,589          356
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Cape Air began service at five Montana communities in December 2013, which is too recent for an accurate
      measurement of the subsidy per passenger.

                         SAFE TRANSPORT OF OIL

Appropriations, 2014....................................................
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     $40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The administration proposed a new appropriation to fund a 
multi-modal initiative to support prevention and response 
activities associated with the safe transportation of crude 
oil. The funds would be available for work conducted by the 
Federal Railroad Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration, and Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration. The Administrators of those operating 
administrations and representatives from the Office of the 
Secretary would serve as a board that would make decisions on 
the use of the funding and would oversee its implementation. 
Funds also could be used to support collaborative efforts with 
other Federal departments and agencies, such as the Department 
of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the 
Environmental Protection Agency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee does not recommend providing a new 
appropriation for initiatives to improve the safety of crude 
oil transportation. The Committee has instead recommended 
funding through the regular appropriations to the offices and 
agencies that conduct this work.
    The dramatic increase in domestic energy production in 
recent years has led to a rapid change in the demands on our 
transportation network. The vast and growing shipments of crude 
oil and ethanol by rail pose new challenges to the Department 
as it works to ensure the safe transportation of these 
hazardous materials in interstate commerce. To that end, the 
Committee recognizes the pressing need to increase the 
resources available to the Department to support activities 
related to research, regulations, oversight and enforcement. 
The Committee recommendation includes additional resources in 
the modal administrations targeted to research activities, 
inspectors, and training and awareness efforts to improve 
emergency response and safety. This funding will assist the 
Secretary in providing a comprehensive prevention, mitigation, 
and response safety strategy for the shipment of energy 
products.

        INTERAGENCY INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING IMPROVEMENT CENTER

Appropriations, 2014....................................................
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      $8,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Administration proposed a new appropriation to fund the 
establishment and operation of an Interagency Infrastructure 
Permitting Improvement Center. The goals of the center would be 
to develop and implement reforms for the permitting and review 
of major infrastructure projects, develop and deploy 
information technology tools to track project schedules and 
metrics, and improve the transparency and accountability of the 
permitting process.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee does not recommend providing a new 
appropriation for an Interagency Infrastructure Permitting 
Improvement Center. The Committee notes that the Department 
regularly undertakes activities to improve permitting and 
review processes, and the Committee expects the Department to 
continue its efforts to advance project delivery using its 
existing agencies and offices. The Committee has not yet seen 
evidence that a new center dedicated to these activities would 
improve the effectiveness of the Department's efforts. Under 
current budgetary constraints, the Committee cannot afford to 
dedicate funding to a new center without more proof that it 
would significantly improve outcomes.

  ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

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

                    Federal Aviation Administration

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for the 
safe movement of civil aviation and the evolution of a national 
system of airports. The Federal Government's regulatory role in 
civil aviation began with the creation of an Aeronautics Branch 
within the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce 
Act of 1926. This act instructed the agency to foster air 
commerce; designate and establish airways; establish, operate, 
and maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and 
development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness 
certificates for aircraft and major aircraft components; and 
investigate civil aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics 
Act of 1938, these activities were transferred to a new, 
independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority.
    Congress streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the 
creation of two separate agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency 
and the Civil Aeronautics Board. When the Department of 
Transportation [DOT] began its operations in 1967, the Federal 
Aviation Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration 
[FAA] and became one of several modal administrations within 
DOT. The Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with 
enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased 
to exist in 1984. Responsibility for the investigation of civil 
aviation accidents was given to the National Transportation 
Safety Board in 1967. FAA's mission expanded in 1995 with the 
transfer of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from 
the Office of the Secretary, and decreased in December 2001 
with the transfer of civil aviation security activities to the 
Transportation Security Administration.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The total recommended funding level for the FAA for fiscal 
year 2015 amounts to $15,860,450,000 including new budget 
authority and a limitation on the obligation of contract 
authority. This funding level is $580,000,000 more than the 
budget request and $126,420,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for fiscal year 2015 in comparison to the 
budget request and the fiscal year 2014 enacted level:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2014 enacted      2015 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations.............................................     $9,651,422,000     $9,750,000,000     $9,750,000,000
Facilities and equipment...............................      2,600,000,000      2,603,700,000      2,473,700,000
Research, engineering, and development.................        158,792,000        156,750,000        156,750,000
Grants-in-aid to airports (obligation limitation)......      3,350,000,000      2,900,000,000      3,480,000,000
Rescissions............................................        -26,184,000       -130,000,000  .................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     15,734,030,000     15,280,450,000     15,860,450,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2014....................................  $9,651,422,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................   9,750,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   9,750,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides funds for the operation, 
maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air 
traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers 
administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory, 
international, commercial space, medical, research, engineering 
and development programs, as well as policy oversight and 
agency management functions. The operations appropriation 
includes the following major activities:
  --the air traffic organization which operates, on a 24-hour 
        daily basis, the national air traffic system, including 
        the establishment and maintenance of a national system 
        of aids to navigation, the development and distribution 
        of aeronautical charts and the administration of 
        acquisition, and research and development programs;
  --the regulation and certification activities, including 
        establishment and surveillance of civil air regulations 
        to assure safety and development of standards, rules 
        and regulations governing the physical fitness of 
        airmen, as well as the administration of an aviation 
        medical research program;
  --the office of commercial space transportation; and
  --headquarters and support offices.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $9,750,000,000 for FAA 
operations. This funding level is equal to the budget request, 
and $98,578,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 
The Committee recommendation derives $8,595,000,000 of the 
appropriation from the airport and airway trust fund. The 
balance of the appropriation will be drawn from the general 
fund of the Treasury.
    As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the event 
resources are insufficient to operate a safe and effective air 
traffic control system.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level:

                                                 FAA OPERATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2014 enacted      2015 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic organization...............................     $7,311,790,000     $7,396,654,000     $7,396,654,000
Aviation safety........................................      1,204,777,000      1,215,458,000      1,215,458,000
Commercial space transportation........................         16,011,000         16,605,000         16,605,000
Finance and management.................................        762,462,000        765,047,000        765,047,000
NextGen operations and planning........................         59,782,000         60,089,000         60,089,000
Staff offices:
    Office of the Administrator........................          4,017,000          4,049,000          4,049,000
    Office of audit and evaluation.....................          3,200,000          3,227,000          3,227,000
    Office of civil rights.............................         11,868,000         11,940,000         11,940,000
    Government and industry affairs....................          1,530,000          1,541,000          1,400,000
    Office of communications...........................          6,003,000          6,056,000          6,056,000
    Office of the Chief Counsel........................         44,190,000         44,772,000         44,772,000
    Office of policy, international affairs and environ-        33,630,000         33,579,000         33,720,000
      ment.............................................
    Human resources management.........................        103,490,000        101,195,000        101,195,000
    Office of security and hazardous materials safety..         88,672,000         89,788,000         89,788,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.........................................        296,600,000        296,147,000        296,147,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................      9,651,422,000      9,750,000,000      9,750,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FAA Administrative Expenses.--The Committee continues to 
expect the FAA to use its Federal resources judiciously, and 
does not believe that providing retention bonuses to the same 
employee for repeated years in a row represents a responsible 
use of those taxpayer dollars. A retention bonus should offer a 
short-term enticement to stay at the FAA for employees 
possessing critical and hard-to-replace skills, thereby giving 
the agency extra time to find a suitable replacement. When 
given every year to a broad spectrum of employees, however, a 
retention bonus acts as a loophole in the Federal 
administrative process, allowing the FAA to give a permanent 
pay raise to certain employees without being held accountable 
to the regular administrative requirements. The Committee is 
still concerned about the FAA's failure to manage this 
authority responsibly, and retains bill language directing the 
Department's Assistant Secretary for Administration to be the 
approving official for any request for a retention bonus by the 
FAA during fiscal year 2015.
    Contract Towers.--The Committee recommendation provides a 
total of $149,000,000 for the contract tower program, which 
includes $138,650,000 for the base program and $10,350,000 for 
the contract tower cost share program. This total funding level 
is sufficient to cover all towers that will be operating during 
fiscal year 2015. The Committee also retains language that 
limits contributions in the contract tower cost share program 
to 20 percent of total costs.
    Critical Workforces of the FAA.--The Committee remains 
committed to FAA's critical workforces, including air traffic 
controllers and aviation safety inspectors and technicians. The 
Committee recommendation fully funds the Administration's 
request for the Air Traffic Organization and the Office of 
Aviation Safety, which will allow the FAA to maintain its 
critical workforces in fiscal year 2015.
    FAA's New Process for Hiring Air Traffic Controllers.--This 
past December, the FAA announced that it would begin hiring 
additional air traffic controllers, and that it would use an 
entirely new process to fill those positions. Among its 
changes, the FAA decided that it would start a new competition, 
no longer using the list or ``inventory'' of candidates that 
the agency had reviewed from prior job announcements; it would 
open the competition to the general public, whereas the agency 
had traditionally targeted its announcements to veterans or 
graduates of schools designed by the FAA as Collegiate Training 
Institutes [CTI]; and it would start using a new tool called 
the biographical questionnaire to screen its candidates.
    The Committee understands that the FAA's new hiring 
policies are necessary to address important shortcomings in the 
way the agency had been hiring air traffic controllers. The old 
process did not appropriately apply veterans' preference law, 
and it raised barriers against the FAA's ability to hire a 
diverse group of new air traffic controllers. The Committee 
agrees that the FAA, as an agency of the Federal Government, 
should ensure that its hiring processes are open and fair for 
everyone.
    However, the FAA managed the change to its hiring process 
poorly. For many, the FAA's announcement was unexpected and 
came suddenly. The FAA had dedicated several years to research 
and development for the new hiring process, and the agency had 
reached out to a variety of stakeholder groups who could help 
inform its decisions. Even so, as valuable as this effort was, 
the FAA never reached out to key participants in the aviation 
community, including controller candidates and CTI schools. 
Instead, the FAA announced its decision in the middle of a 
school year, issued its next job announcement immediately, and 
caused confusion among the very people who needed to navigate 
the new process.
    Furthermore, significant questions have been raised now 
that the FAA has conducted the biographical questionnaire for 
the first time. According to the National Air Traffic 
Controllers Association, who worked closely with the FAA in 
developing its new hiring process, the agency had expected 
about 30 percent of its candidates to advance beyond the 
biographical questionnaire. Yet, less than 8 percent have 
advanced beyond the questionnaire this year. Candidates who had 
applied for a controller position through a previous job 
announcement, taken the FAA's technical skills test, and been 
told that they were considered ``well qualified,'' now find 
themselves being screened out by the biographical 
questionnaire. They are shaken by this experience because they 
feel that they had already proven their technical abilities, 
but they are now being screened out by a questionnaire that 
asks them, for example, to decide if other people would 
describe them as a person with great ``drive'' or great 
``persistence.''
    The FAA has placed great confidence in its new hiring 
process, arguing that it will lead to more open and fair 
competition. The Committee, however, is concerned that 
confusion about the new process and the role of the 
biographical questionnaire has detracted from this year's 
recruiting effort.
    The Committee has included a new provision in its bill 
language to ensure that the FAA's new hiring process truly 
gives every applicant the ability to compete openly and fairly 
for a job as an air traffic controller. This year's process may 
have been marked by confusion, but the Committee believes that 
applicants should be held harmless from the FAA's inability to 
manage the transition to the new hiring process. The bill 
clarifies that any person who held a position on the FAA's 
``inventory'' of qualified candidates from previous job 
announcements can apply for a position as an air traffic 
controller during fiscal year 2015, even if they turned 31 
years old and aged out of the process during this past year.
    In addition, the Committee expects that in the future FAA 
will consider its partnership with CTI schools more seriously, 
and invite their input when contemplating significant policy 
changes that would affect their students.
    Aircraft Certification Process Review and Reform.--The 
Committee continues to be keenly interested in FAA's progress 
toward implementing section 312 of the FAA Modernization and 
Reform Act of 2012, which requires the FAA to develop a more 
streamlined certification process. An aviation rulemaking 
committee [ARC], with representatives from both FAA and the 
aviation industry, issued its recommendations on May 22, 2012. 
The recommendations included expanding the use of FAA's 
delegated authority and a risk-based, systems safety approach 
to its oversight. FAA must now face a far more challenging task 
of implementing those recommendations, and measuring the 
effectiveness of its efforts.
    It is essential for FAA to document its progress to the 
Committee and other aviation stakeholders. The Committee 
therefore directs FAA to submit to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations a report no later than April 3, 
2015, on the measures of effectiveness that FAA is applying to 
its work in implementing the ARC's recommendations. The report 
should detail the measures of effectiveness and the extent to 
which they track FAA's progress, including the agency's 
progress in relying more fully on delegated authorities and 
toward a systems safety approach; how regularly the FAA will 
collect this data and how it will be used to improve FAA's 
process over time; the extent to which FAA has modified its 
personnel expectations and its training course content to 
communicate changes to field offices; and the extent to which 
ARC members were consulted in drafting the measures of 
effectiveness.
    FAA's success in streamlining its certification process 
relies on the agency's workforce of trained inspectors, 
engineers and specialists. The Committee directs the FAA to 
include in its annual aviation safety workforce plan a section 
devoted to the actions undertaken and planned by the agency to 
further enhance aircraft certification workforce skills and 
training.
    The Committee also expects FAA to continue its efforts to 
educate and coordinate with other international aviation 
authorities about its certification process. These efforts are 
consistent with the FAA's strategic plan, and they are critical 
to FAA's ability to streamline and enhance the validation and 
acceptance of FAA certifications globally.
    Finally, the Committee expects the FAA to use the resources 
provided in its recommendation to support the completion of a 
final rule that advances the safety and continued development 
of small airplanes, as required by the Small Airplane 
Revitalization Act of 2013.
    Consistency of Regulatory Interpretation.--Section 313 of 
the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires FAA to 
improve how consistently its offices and field locations 
enforce agency regulations. An aviation rulemaking committee 
developed recommendations on this issue and issued its report 
on November 28, 2012. As with FAA's work on certification 
streamlining, the agency must now face the challenge of 
implementing the recommendations.
    The Committee is acutely interested in the FAA's progress 
toward improving the consistency of its regulatory 
interpretation, but remains concerned about the current state 
of affairs. Recently, for example, an airline that interacts 
with flight standards district offices in Seattle, Washington, 
as well as Juneau and Anchorage, Alaska, reported startling 
differences in how these offices treated the same situation. 
The airline had voluntarily raised a concern documentation 
related to its aircraft. The offices in Alaska worked closely 
with several airlines to fix the issue, knowing that it did not 
have any safety implications. In contrast, the office in 
Seattle issued a formal letter of investigation that threatened 
regulatory action against the airline, which would have 
resulted in grounding its fleet.
    Even more startling was the reaction of managers at the 
Seattle office when the airline suggested that its working 
relationship with the Alaska offices could be a model for 
addressing similar issues in the future. The airline was told 
that each flight standards district office works independently 
and has no relationship with the other offices. This assertion 
is true only to the extent that each district office has the 
authority to conduct its own oversight, but completely ignores 
the fact that each office works on behalf of the FAA and must 
conduct its work accordingly.
    As this incident shows, there are significant differences 
among field offices in their workplace culture and their 
understanding of how to use best practices when enforcing FAA 
policy and regulations, as well as a large gap between field 
offices and FAA headquarters. The Committee therefore directs 
the FAA to include a section in its annual aviation safety 
workforce plan devoted to the actions undertaken and planned by 
the agency to improve the consistency of its regulatory 
interpretations.
    Air Traffic Control Optimum Training Solution.--To protect 
the safety of the national airspace, the FAA must maintain a 
full workforce of trained air traffic controllers. According to 
the FAA's current Controller Workforce Plan, the agency will 
hire 10,031 air traffic controllers over the next 9 years. The 
FAA needs an effective strategy for training all of these 
controllers.
    In September 2008, the FAA awarded the Air Traffic Control 
Optimum Training Solution [ATCOTS] contract to provide up to 10 
years of controller training. The FAA claimed that the ATCOTS 
program would modernize how the agency trained its air traffic 
controllers, reducing the time it took to train each controller 
and the total cost of controller training. The ATCOTS contract 
included provisions that were supposed to encourage the 
contractor to develop training innovations.
    In reality, ATCOTS has not produced results. The program 
resulted in cost overruns each year over the first 4 years, 
racking up about $89,000,000 in additional expenses and 
exhausting the program's base level of funding a year ahead of 
time. The additional spending, however, was not buying the FAA 
a more efficient training program. Over the fiscal year 2009-
2012 period, the amount of time needed to certify controllers 
increased by an average of 41 percent. That is, under the 
ATCOTS program, it took an average of 9 months longer to 
certify each air traffic controller. Running out of room under 
its ATCOTS budget, the FAA exercised the contract's first 
extension a year in advance, lengthening the contract by 3 
years. FAA has improved its oversight of the contract, but 
according to a report issued by the Inspector General in 
December 2013, the agency still has not adequately defined its 
requirements or fully identified training costs.
    Since last November, this Committee has been asking for a 
briefing from the FAA that would cover the status of the ATCOTS 
program, the program's procurement schedule, and the agency's 
strategy for improving the program's performance. The FAA has 
been unwilling or unable to provide this briefing, and the 
FAA's unwillingness to discuss the status of ATCOTS reflects 
poorly on agency's ability to manage the program.
    The Committee directs the FAA to provide the requested 
briefing to staff members for the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations immediately. In addition, given the long 
history of briefing requests, the Committee turns to the Office 
of Inspector General [OIG] to provide further insight into the 
FAA's ability to estimate the cost of the ATCOTS program, and 
the FAA's strategy for managing this program after the current 
contract period. The Committee directs the OIG to submit an 
update to the December 2013 report on the ATCOTS program no 
later than 6 months after enactment of this act.
    Pilot Records Database.--The Committee directs FAA to 
continue implementing section 203 of the Airline Safety Act of 
2010, which requires the agency to create a pilot records 
database. This database will contain various types of pilot 
records that air carriers will use to perform a record check on 
pilots before making hiring decisions. The FAA has encountered 
significant obstacles in collecting and collating many years' 
worth of industry records and developing a software database. 
The Committee recognizes the difficulty of these obstacles, but 
remains concerned with the pace of the rulemaking. The 
Committee directs the FAA to provide a letter report on its 
progress in meeting the requirements of section 203 to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 
March 2, 2015.
    FAA's Telecommunications.--The executive branch has issued 
an order allowing commercial telecommunication carriers to test 
the transition from time-division multiplexed [TDM] circuit 
switched voice services to Internet protocol [IP] networks. 
This transition from TDM to IP could have a significant impact 
on the FAA because 92 percent of the agency's 
telecommunications services are TDM-based. FAA is working with 
its telecommunications service provider and the Federal 
Communications Commission to ensure that FAA operations are not 
disrupted by this transition. FAA also recognizes the need for 
a long-term plan that is consistent with its effort to 
modernize the air traffic control system. The Committee directs 
FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations no later than March 31, 2015, on the status of 
its investment analysis of the transition to IP services.
    Public Comment Periods.--The Committee recognizes the 
critical role of public comment periods on FAA's rulemaking 
proceedings and the agency's non-rulemaking activities related 
to special use airspace. These efforts could affect a 
significant portion of the public, and full and fair public 
comment periods improve transparency and confidence among 
stakeholders that the FAA will take all views into account. The 
Committee, however, is concerned that the FAA has failed to 
take meaningful steps to improve transparency in its rulemaking 
process. To ensure the public's ability to submit comments on 
actions being considered by the FAA, it is important to make 
electronic submissions available, especially as many 
individuals have shifted toward providing comments to the 
Federal Government through the Internet. Therefore, the 
Committee directs the FAA to update its procedures for handling 
airspace matters to ensure an online venue is available for 
comment submission on all public comment solicitations, 
including solicitations on special use airspace non-rulemaking 
circulars.
    Aeronautical Navigation Products.--The Committee remains 
concerned about Aeronautical Navigation Products' [AeroNav] 
plans to impose a per person charge and erect a digital 
copyright on digital products produced by the FAA for the 
public benefit. The FAA has previously made these products 
available for download from its Web site without charge. The 
Committee is concerned that the proposed scheme will be used to 
support the declining paper chart services by charging those 
that are moving to a digital format. In contrast to AeroNav's 
efforts, Executive Order 13642 was issued on May 14, 2013, to 
make government data available to foster entrepreneurship and 
innovation. This order builds on another order issued in 2012 
to open up government systems with public interfaces for 
commercial application providers.
    With these concerns in mind, the Committee continues to 
include bill language that prohibits AeroNav from implementing 
new charges on AeroNav products until the FAA provides the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report that 
describes (1) the estimated cost of producing only its digital 
products, on a product-by-product basis (for example, 
delineating costs for electronic navigation charts and vector 
charts separately), for use on computers, tablets, and other 
displays; (2) the cost of producing both digital products and 
paper products, on a product-by-product basis; (3) safety and 
operational benefits of using digital products; and (4) how 
AeroNav's actions conflict with the direction in Executive 
Order 13642 to support open data for entrepreneurship, 
innovation, and scientific discovery.
    FAA Public Hearing.--The Committee remains concerned with 
the proposed modifications to the Condor 1 and Condor 2 
military operating areas and encourages FAA to continue working 
with its partner agencies by holding a public hearing with 
representatives from the relevant Federal agencies in western 
Maine upon completion of the Air National Guard's environmental 
impact statement and the record of decision. The Committee 
recognizes that the Air National Guard, as the lead agency 
under the NEPA process, has sought to meet the minimum legal 
requirements for public participation and comment. However, the 
Committee remains troubled with how the authorization of low-
altitude military training in the proposed airspace would 
affect areas that significantly contribute to the local economy 
and areas that are culturally and environmentally sensitive. 
Furthermore, the Committee notes the FAA is the only Federal 
agency that can modify special airspace and that the FAA may 
adopt the Air National Guard's EIS in whole, or in part, once 
the Final EIS has been issued. In addition, the Committee 
directs the FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations prior to the issuance of a record of decision 
regarding the modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 
military operations areas that includes a summary of any public 
meeting and hearing and a list of the comments, questions, and 
responses presented at these meetings and hearings.
    Unmanned Aerial Systems.--Section 333 of the FAA 
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 authorized the FAA to 
approve, where appropriate and consistent with criteria 
specified in the law, the operation of certain unmanned 
aircraft systems before the completion of certain rules and 
planning requirements specified in the law. The Committee 
encourages the FAA to consider whether UAS test sites may be 
appropriate in assisting the Secretary in making determinations 
under section 333. The Committee also urges the FAA to 
communicate clearly with the UAS industry regarding its 
priorities for section 333 consideration.

                        FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2014....................................  $2,600,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................   2,603,700,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,473,700,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Facilities and Equipment appropriation provides funding 
for modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway 
facilities, equipment, and systems. The appropriation also 
finances major capital investments required by other agency 
programs, experimental research and development facilities, and 
other improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the 
national airspace system [NAS]. The program aims to keep pace 
with the increasing demands of aeronautical activity and remain 
in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration's 
comprehensive 5-year capital investment plan [CIP].

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,473,700,000 
for the Facilities and Equipment account of the Federal 
Aviation Administration. The recommended level is $130,000,000 
less than the budget request and $126,300,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2014 enacted level. In addition, the Committee 
recommendation increases the obligation limitation of the 
grants-in-aid for airports program by $130,000,000 and sets 
aside this funding for FAA facilities and equipment that are 
located on airport property, bringing the total amount of 
funding for facilities and equipment under the Committee 
recommendation to a level equal to the President's budget 
request. This provision is discussed in more depth under the 
heading for grants-in-aid to airports.
    Capital Investment Plan.--For the past 2 years, the FAA has 
failed to produce its annual capital investment plan in a 
timely manner. The appropriations laws for fiscal years 2012 
and 2013 required the FAA to issue its next plan with the 
Administration's submission of its budget request. The fiscal 
year 2013 plan was not submitted to Congress until August, 6 
months after the deadline, and the fiscal year 2014 plan has 
not yet been submitted. The Committee therefore has included a 
new provision in its bill language that would lower the 
appropriation for FAA's facilities and equipment by $100,000 
for each day after the submission of the fiscal year 2016 
budget request that the plan has not been submitted to 
Congress.
    Budget Activities Format.--The Committee directs that the 
fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Facilities and 
Equipment account conform to the same organizational structure 
of budget activities as displayed below.
    The following table shows the Committee's recommended 
distribution of funds for each of the budget activities funded 
by this appropriation and by resources provided under grants-
in-aid to airports:

                                            FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2014 enacted      2015 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 1--Engineering, Development, Test and
 Evaluation:
    Advanced technology development and prototyping....        $32,000,000        $29,900,000        $29,900,000
    NAS improvement of system support laboratory.......          1,000,000          1,000,000          1,000,000
    William J. Hughes Technical Center facilities......         11,000,000         12,049,000         12,049,000
    William J. Hughes Technical Center infrastructure            5,000,000         12,200,000         12,200,000
     sustainment.......................................
    Data communications in support of NextGen..........        115,450,000  .................  .................
    NextGen--Demonstrations and infrastructure                  20,000,000  .................  .................
     development.......................................
    NextGen--Systems development.......................         58,075,883  .................  .................
    NextGen--Trajectory based operations...............         15,988,063  .................  .................
    NextGen--Reduce weather impact.....................          2,729,354  .................  .................
    NextGen--High density/arrivals/departures..........          5,484,247  .................  .................
    NextGen--Collaborative ATM.........................         20,250,589  .................  .................
    NextGen--Flexible terminals and airports...........         12,923,385  .................  .................
    NextGen--System network facilities.................          5,094,032  .................  .................
    NextGen--Future facilities.........................         10,000,000  .................  .................
    Performance based navigation/RNAV/RNP..............         32,200,000  .................  .................
    NextGen--Separation management.....................  .................         13,000,000         13,000,000
    NextGen--Improved surface/TFDM.....................  .................         38,808,000         38,808,000
    NextGen--On demand NAS.............................  .................          6,000,000          6,000,000
    NextGen--Environment...............................  .................          2,500,000          5,500,000
    NextGen--Improved multiple runway operations.......  .................          3,500,000          3,500,000
    NextGen--NAS infrastructure........................  .................         13,480,000         13,480,000
    NextGen--Support...................................  .................         13,000,000         13,000,000
    NextGen--Performance based navigation and metroplex  .................         25,500,000         25,500,000

Activity 2--Air Traffic Control Facilities and
 Equipment:

a. En Route Programs:
    En route automation modernization [ERAM]...........         66,800,000         10,500,000         10,500,000
    En route automation modernization [ERAM]--system            35,000,000         45,200,000         45,200,000
     enhancements and tech refresh.....................
    En route communications gateway [ECG]..............          2,200,000          6,600,000          6,600,000
    Next generation weather radar [NEXRAD]--provide....          4,100,000          7,100,000          7,100,000
    ARTCC building improvements/plant improvements.....         45,160,377         63,700,000         60,000,000
    Air traffic management [ATM].......................         13,800,000          5,729,000          5,729,000
    Air/ground communications infrastructure...........          5,500,000          3,900,000          3,900,000
    Air traffic control en route radar facilities                5,900,000          5,100,000          5,100,000
     improvements......................................
    Voice switching and control system [VSCS]..........         19,000,000         13,800,000         13,800,000
    Oceanic automation system..........................          4,800,000          3,508,000          3,508,000
    Next generation very high frequency air/ground comm         20,250,000         40,000,000         40,000,000
     [NEXCOM]..........................................
    Systemwide information management..................         66,550,000         60,261,000         60,261,000
    ADS-B NAS-wide implementation......................        282,100,400        247,200,000        257,200,000
    Windshear detection service........................          2,000,000          4,300,000          4,300,000
    Weather and radar processor [WARP].................            700,000  .................  .................
    Collaborative air traffic management technologies           28,200,000         13,491,000         13,491,000
     WP2 & WP3.........................................
    Colorado ADS-B/WAM cost share......................          3,400,000  .................  .................
    Time based flow management.........................         10,500,000         21,000,000         21,000,000
    ATC beacon interrogator [ATCBI]--sustainment.......          1,000,000  .................  .................
    NextGen weather processors.........................         11,475,000         23,320,000         23,320,000
    Airborne collision avoidance system X [ACASX]......  .................         12,000,000         12,000,000
    Data communications in support of NextGen..........  .................        147,340,000        150,340,000

b. Terminal Programs:
    Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X [ASDE-         12,100,000          5,436,000          5,436,000
     X]................................................
    Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR]--provide.....          3,600,000          1,900,000          1,900,000
    Standard terminal automation replacement system             45,500,000         50,700,000         50,700,000
     [STARS] (TAMR Phase 1)............................
    Terminal automation modernization/replacement              155,550,000        136,150,000        136,150,000
     program (TAMR Phase 3)............................
    Terminal automation program........................          2,600,000          1,600,000          1,600,000
    Terminal air traffic control facilities--replace\1\         69,000,000         29,800,000         58,800,000
    ATCT/Terminal radar approach control [TRACON]               48,228,833         45,040,000         45,040,000
     facilities--improve\1\............................
    Terminal voice switch replacement [TVSR]...........          5,000,000          2,000,000          2,000,000
    NAS facilities OSHA and environmental standards             21,000,000         43,501,000         40,000,000
     compliance........................................
    Airport surveillance radar [ASR-9].................         10,900,000         13,600,000         13,600,000
    Terminal digital radar [ASR-11] tech refresh and            19,400,000         21,100,000         21,100,000
     mobile airport surveillance radar [MASR]..........
    Runway status lights\1\............................         35,250,000         41,710,000         41,710,000
    National airspace system voice system [NVS]........         16,000,000         20,550,000         20,550,000
    Integrated display system [IDS]....................          4,100,000         16,917,000         16,917,000
    Remote monitoring and logging system [RMLS]........          1,000,000          3,930,000          3,930,000
    Mode S service life extension program [SLEP].......          7,300,000          8,100,000          8,100,000
    Surveillance interface modernization...............          6,000,000          4,000,000          4,000,000
    Tower flight data manager [TFDM]...................         19,250,000  .................  .................
    Voice recorder replacement program [VRRP]..........          6,200,000          1,000,000          1,000,000
    Precision runway monitor [PRM].....................          5,000,000          1,000,000          1,000,000
    Integrated terminal weather system [ITWS]..........          1,300,000          4,400,000          4,400,000

c. Flight Service Programs:
    Aviation surface observation system [ASOS].........         10,000,000          8,000,000          8,000,000
    Future flight service program......................          3,000,000          1,000,000          1,000,000
    Alaska flight service facility modernization                 1,500,000          2,800,000          2,800,000
     [AFSFM]...........................................
    Weather camera program.............................          1,200,000            200,000            200,000

d. Landing and Navigational Aids Program:
     VHF Omnidirectional radio range [VOR] with                  8,300,000          8,300,000          8,300,000
     distance measuring equipment [DME]................
    Instrument landing system [ILS]--establish\1\......          7,000,000          7,000,000          7,000,000
    Wide area augmentation system [WAAS] for GPS.......         84,000,000        103,600,000        103,600,000
    Runway visual range [RVR] and enhanced low                   6,000,000          6,000,000          7,500,000
     visibility operations [ELVO]\1\...................
    Approach lighting system improvement program                 3,500,000          3,000,000          3,000,000
     [ALSIP]\1\........................................
    Distance measuring equipment [DME].................          4,000,000          3,000,000          3,000,000
    Visual NAVAIDS--establish/expand...................          2,500,000          2,000,000          2,000,000
    Instrument flight procedures automation [IFPA].....          4,500,000          2,400,000          2,400,000
    Navigation and landing aids--service life extension          3,000,000          3,000,000          3,000,000
     program [SLEP]....................................
    VASI Replacement--replace with precision approach            2,500,000          5,000,000          5,000,000
     path indicator\1\.................................
    GPS Civil requirements.............................          6,000,000         27,000,000         10,000,000
    Runway safety areas--navigational mitigation\1\....         38,000,000         35,000,000         35,000,000

e. Other ATC Facilities Programs:
    Fuel storage tank replacement and management.......          8,700,000         15,500,000         15,500,000
    Unstaffed infrastructure sustainment...............         20,000,000         32,300,000         32,300,000
    Aircraft related equipment program.................         10,400,000          9,000,000          9,000,000
    Airport cable loop systems--sustained support......          5,000,000          5,000,000          5,000,000
    Alaskan satellite telecommunications infrastructure          8,500,000         11,400,000         11,400,000
     [ASTI]............................................
    Facilities decommissioning.........................          6,500,000          5,700,000          5,700,000
    Electrical power systems--sustain/support..........         68,075,000        102,000,000         86,701,000
    FAA Employee housing and life safety shelter system          2,500,000  .................  .................
     service...........................................
    Energy management and compliance [EMC].............  .................          1,000,000          1,000,000

Activity 3--Nonair Traffic Control Facilities and
 Equipment:

a. Support Equipment:
    Hazardous materials management.....................         18,500,000         22,000,000         22,000,000
    Aviation safety analysis system [ASAS].............         12,700,000         11,900,000         11,900,000
    Logistics support systems and facilities [LSSF]....         10,000,000          8,000,000          8,000,000
    National airspace [NAS] recovery communications             12,000,000         12,000,000         12,000,000
     [RCOM]............................................
    Facility security risk management..................         15,000,000         14,300,000         14,300,000
    Information security...............................         13,000,000         12,000,000         12,000,000
    System approach for safety oversight [SASO]........         12,500,000         22,500,000         22,500,000
    Aviation safety knowledge management environment            12,200,000         10,200,000         10,200,000
     [ASKME]...........................................
    Data center optimization...........................          1,000,000  .................  .................
    Aerospace medical equipment needs [AMEN]...........          5,000,000  .................  .................
    Aviation safety information analysis and sharing            15,000,000  .................  .................
     [ASIAS]...........................................
    System safety management portfolio.................  .................         18,700,000         18,700,000
    National test equipment program....................          3,000,000          2,000,000          2,000,000
    Mobile assets management program...................          3,000,000          4,000,000          4,000,000
    Aerospace medicine safety information systems                3,900,000          3,000,000          3,000,000
     [AMSIS]...........................................
    Tower simulation system [TSS] tech refresh.........  .................          3,000,000          3,000,000

b. Training, Equipment and Facilities:
    Aeronautical center infrastructure modernization...          9,000,000         13,180,000         13,180,000
    Distance learning..................................          1,000,000          1,500,000          1,500,000

Activity 4--Facilities and Equipment Mission Support:

a. System Support and Services:
    System engineering and development support.........         34,314,837         34,504,000         34,504,000
    Program support leases.............................         42,100,000         43,200,000         43,200,000
    Logistics support services [LSS]...................         11,500,000         11,500,000         11,500,000
    Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center leases...........         17,900,000         18,350,000         18,350,000
    Transition engineering support.....................         16,500,000         16,596,000         16,596,000
    Technical support services contract [TSSC].........         23,000,000         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             60,000,000         60,000,000         60,000,000
     [CAASD]...........................................
    Aeronautical information management program........          9,050,000         12,650,000         12,650,000
    Cross agency NextGen management....................  .................          2,000,000          2,000,000

Activity 5--Personnel and Related Expenses.............        450,250,000        463,000,000        456,000,000
    Reduction for programs paid out of grants-in-aid to  .................  .................       -130,000,000
     airports..........................................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total resources provided under this appropria-       2,600,000,000      2,603,700,000      2,473,700,000
         tion..........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\These programs may include amounts from grants-in-aid to airports in fiscal year 2015.

    NextGen--Environment.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $5,500,000 for the NextGen--Environment portfolio, an 
increase of $3,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee 
recommends this additional funding to support the Continuous 
Low Energy, Emissions and Noise [CLEEN] program, in which the 
FAA partners with the aviation industry to develop and test 
aircraft technologies that reduce noise, emissions and fuel 
burn. The Committee recommendation also includes an additional 
$2,000,000 above the budget request for the CLEEN program in 
the appropriation for FAA's research, engineering and 
development activities. In total, the Committee recommendation 
provides $21,200,000 for the CLEEN program, an increase of 
$5,000,000 above the budget request.
    En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM].--Under the ERAM 
program, the FAA is replacing the computer system it uses to 
manage high-altitude air traffic. Modernizing this network is 
critical to the effective management of air traffic, and the 
program is essential to moving the FAA into the next generation 
of air traffic control. Although the FAA has improved its 
management of ERAM, addressing many of the concerns that led to 
significant cost increases and schedule delays early in its 
schedule, the program is still subject to risk. The Committee 
recommendation includes $10,500,000 for ERAM, which is equal to 
the budget request and $56,300,000 lower than the fiscal year 
2014 enacted level. The FAA has asserted that its budget 
request for fiscal year 2015 represents the final installment 
in the program's base budget, and the Committee does not expect 
to see a funding request for this activity in the President's 
budget request for fiscal year 2016.
    ADS-B NAS-Wide Implementation.--The FAA is currently 
replacing its radar-based air traffic control system with 
satellite technology under the Automatic Dependent 
Surveillance--Broadcast [ADS-B] program. ADS-B uses GPS signals 
to transmit an aircraft's location to receivers installed on 
the ground throughout the United States. The ground receivers 
transmit that information to air traffic controller screens and 
flight deck displays on any aircraft equipped with the 
appropriate avionics. Using ADS-B will improve the safety and 
efficiency of the national airspace, and it is a foundational 
program of the FAA's NextGen effort to modernize our air 
traffic control system. The Committee recommendation therefore 
includes $257,200,000 for the implementation of ADS-B across 
the national airspace, which is $10,000,000 more than the 
budget request and $24,900,400 less than the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level.
    However, replacing radar technology with ADS-B throughout 
our national airspace requires the use of ground receivers, and 
so the FAA's current program will not improve surveillance of 
the airspace over oceans or in remote areas that lack radar 
coverage. A system of satellite communications has become 
available that would extend the use of ADS-B over oceanic 
airspace and other remote areas. Because the FAA manages a 
large portion of oceanic airspace, the Committee believes that 
satellite-based ADS-B represents an important opportunity for 
the agency. This project would allow the FAA to improve the 
flow of air traffic across oceanic airspace, reducing fuel 
consumption and emissions. FAA's involvement would also protect 
the agency's leadership position in aviation across the globe.
    The FAA has considered this opportunity, but has not yet 
made an investment decision. For this reason, the Committee 
directs the FAA to make an investment decision regarding 
satellite-based ADS-B no later than 30 days after enactment of 
this act in order to address the Committee's concern that the 
agency's absence from the program is undermining its status as 
a global safety and technology leader, and limiting its ability 
to fully promote NextGen.
    Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program [TAMR 
Phase 3].--Under the TAMR program, the FAA is replacing the 
computer system used in facilities that manage air traffic 
coming into and leaving airports. Like ERAM, the TAMR program 
is essential for the FAA to move forward with its effort to 
modernize the air traffic control system.
    Unfortunately, also like ERAM, TAMR has a history of cost 
overruns and schedule delays. The Committee provided additional 
funding for fiscal year 2014 to help TAMR recover from 
disruptions caused by the temporary furlough of FAA employees 
after the fiscal year 2013 sequestration. Most of the program's 
difficulties, however, stem from more significant problems. 
Last May, the Inspector General issued a report on TAMR that 
questioned whether the FAA had developed a reliable schedule 
and budget for the program. He asserted that the FAA did not 
complete all of the risk assessments required by its own 
acquisition management system before approving the program 
schedule, and that the FAA ignored important elements of the 
program when it approved the program's cost baseline.
    The TAMR program has recently kept within the current 
baseline for its budget and schedule, but too often the 
Committee has been reassured that a program is making good 
progress not long before the FAA significantly increases the 
budget or lengthens the schedule. Addressing such adjustments 
to the TAMR baseline would be increasingly difficult in today's 
fiscal environment.
    The Committee recommendation includes $136,150,000 for 
TAMR, which is equal to the budget request and $19,400,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. Because this funding 
level is consistent with the budget request, and does not 
include a funding increase for TAMR, the Committee 
recommendation can also accommodate many of the other funding 
levels in the budget request for the FAA's facilities and 
equipment. Facing tight budget constraints, the Committee 
cannot expect to provide funding increases for one program 
without making offsetting cuts to other activities within the 
FAA budget.
    Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace.--The 
Committee recommends $58,800,000 for the replacement of air 
traffic control facilities that manage terminal airspace, 
including air traffic control towers and terminal radar 
approach control facilities [TRACONs]. This funding level is 
$29,000,000 above the budget request and $10,200,000 below the 
fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The Committee recommendation 
includes this additional funding to ensure that budgetary 
constraints for fiscal year 2015 do not cause any of the 
projects to experience construction delays, which could add 
significantly to a project's total cost over the long term.
    Enhanced Low Visibility Operations.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $7,500,000 for runway visual range and 
enhanced low visibility operations, an increase of $1,500,000 
above the budget request and the fiscal year 2014 enacted 
level. The Committee recommends this funding increase to 
support enhanced low visibility operations, and directs the FAA 
to use the funding for advanced aircraft and airport navigation 
safety equipment for airports serving remote communities that 
rely on aviation for basic transportation needs and cannot 
afford to allow weather conditions to interrupt air operations.
    FAA Management Training and Conference Center.--The 
Committee continues to recommend that the FAA continue to 
pursue new leased space for its Management Training and 
Conference Center. A significant amount of both private and 
public resources have been committed to this procurement 
process. The Committee recognizes that a best value acquisition 
will result in continuing the preceding procurement process as 
the FAA's long-term need for such a facility remains. The 
Committee, in understanding both the FAA's long-term needs and 
costs of remaining in the current, temporary facility, 
recognizes that it is appropriate to not only continue with the 
procurement, but that doing so is consistent with the recently 
enacted FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

                 RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $158,792,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     156,750,000
Committee recommendation................................     156,750,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Research, Engineering and Development appropriation 
provides funding for long-term research, engineering, and 
development programs to improve the air traffic control system 
by increasing its safety and capacity, as well as reducing the 
environmental impacts of air traffic, as authorized by the 
Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation 
Act, as amended. The programs are designed to meet the expected 
air traffic demands of the future and to promote flight safety 
through improvements in facilities, equipment, techniques, and 
procedures to ensure that the system will safely and 
efficiently handle future volumes of aircraft traffic.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $156,750,000 for the FAA's 
research, engineering, and development activities. The 
recommended level of funding is equal to the budget request and 
$2,042,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    A table showing the fiscal year 2014 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2015 budget estimate and the Committee 
recommendation follows:

                                     RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                   2014 enacted    2015 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety:
    Fire research and safety....................................      $8,000,000      $6,929,000      $6,000,000
    Propulsion and fuel systems.................................       1,800,000       2,413,000       2,000,000
    Advanced materials/structural safety........................       2,600,000       2,909,000       2,909,000
    Aircraft icing /digital system safety.......................       7,500,000       5,889,000       5,500,000
    Continued airworthiness.....................................       8,000,000       9,619,000       9,619,000
    Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research...........       1,500,000       1,567,000       1,500,000
    Flightdeck/maintenance/system integration human factors.....       5,000,000       9,897,000       8,500,000
    System safety management....................................      11,000,000       7,970,000       7,970,000
    Air traffic control/technical operations human factors......       5,000,000       5,898,000       5,400,000
    Aeromedical research........................................       7,000,000       8,919,000       8,300,000
    Weather program.............................................      14,200,000      17,800,000      15,847,000
    Unmanned aircraft systems research..........................       8,644,000       8,974,000      12,974,000
    NextGen--Alternative fuels for general aviation.............       6,000,000       5,700,000       6,000,000
    NextGen--Advanced system and software validation............       1,000,000  ..............  ..............
Economic competitiveness:
    NextGen--Wake turbulence....................................       9,000,000       8,541,000       8,541,000
    NextGen--Air ground integration human factors...............      11,329,000       9,697,000       9,697,000
    NextGen--Weather technology in the cockpit..................       4,000,000       4,048,000       4,048,000
Environmental sustainability:
    Environment and energy......................................      14,600,000      14,921,000      14,921,000
    NextGen--Environmental research aircraft technologies,            26,979,000      19,514,000      21,514,000
     fuels, and metrics.........................................
Mission support:
    System planning and resource management.....................       2,200,000       2,135,000       2,100,000
    William J. Hughes Technical Center..........................       3,440,000       3,410,000       3,410,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     158,792,000     156,750,000     156,750,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unmanned Aerial Systems Research--Center of Excellence.--
The Committee recommendation includes $12,974,000 for unmanned 
aircraft systems research, an increase of $4,000,000 above the 
budget request and $4,330,000 above the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level. The administration's request includes $1,000,000 
for a new center of excellence on unmanned aircraft systems 
[UAS], but given its importance, the Committee directs the FAA 
to dedicate the full funding increase to the center, which 
would receive a total of $5,000,000 under the Committee 
recommendation.
    The Committee is pleased with the Department's progress in 
establishing a UAS center of excellence to address a host of 
research challenges associated with integration of UAS into the 
national airspace. The formation of a UAS center of excellence 
is essential to meet the requirements enacted as part of the 
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Committee directs 
that when the FAA selects candidates for the center, the agency 
shall consider a geographically and climatically diverse team 
of academic institutions with proven track records in unmanned 
aircraft systems engineering and certification, airspace 
integration, aviation modeling and simulation, UAS policy, UAS 
training and pilot certification, and collaboration with 
partners in the UAS industry. As cyber security is of paramount 
importance to safe UAS operations, the FAA should pay 
particular attention to teams with National Security 
Administration and Department of Homeland Security cyber 
education, research and operations certifications. Candidates 
should be well integrated with the FAA UAS test sites, with 
emphasis on teams that have the capacity to research beyond 
line of sight small UAS operations. Candidates should have 
close relations with disaster response agencies, the Department 
of Homeland Security and the Department of Agriculture in order 
to facilitate research into key UAS mission areas, such as 
environmental monitoring, weather and hydrologic prediction, 
precision agriculture, law enforcement, disaster response and 
oil transportation systems monitoring.
    Unmanned Aerial Systems Research--Strategic Plan for 
Research.--In order to support the integration of UAS into the 
national airspace, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 
required the FAA to work with other Federal agencies and 
representatives from the aviation industry on a comprehensive 
plan that would include a timeline for the necessary research 
and regulations. The law also required the FAA to write its own 
roadmap for integrating UAS into the national airspace, to 
update this roadmap each year, and to designate six test sites 
that will collect data and conduct research.
    Although the FAA has completed each of these requirements, 
the Committee remains concerned that the FAA has not yet shown 
details on how its research will directly lead to better UAS 
integration. The first edition of FAA's roadmap, entitled the 
``Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems [UAS] in the 
National Airspace System [NAS] Roadmap,'' contains no 
discussion on what specific questions need to be answered 
before integrating UAS into the national airspace, what 
research projects would answer those questions, or which data 
are necessary to support that research. Importantly, the 
roadmap does not provide a strategy on how the test sites will 
participate in these efforts.
    The Committee understands that the new UAS center of 
excellence can perform a vital role in coordinating with each 
of the test sites and filling research gaps for the FAA. 
However, the Committee believes that the FAA must direct the 
strategy itself.
    The Committee therefore directs the FAA to include a 
strategic plan on research efforts as part of its next edition 
of the roadmap. The roadmap shall include a section that 
discusses the specific research needs to safely integrate UAS 
into the NAS, including an examination of the research goals 
that the FAA must reach in order to successfully and safety 
advance NAS integration; FAA's strategy to obtain the 
identified research through partnerships with other Federal 
agencies, the UAS center of excellence, participants in the UAS 
and aviation industry, and the UAS test sites; and an 
evaluation of the ability of the UAS test sites to coordinate 
with the FAA and its center of excellence, and participate in 
the FAA's strategy, and help achieve the research goals 
identified in the roadmap.
    Unmanned Aerial Systems Research--Coordination with Other 
Agencies.--Both the U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP] 
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] 
research and develop UAS technologies. The Committee therefore 
encourages the FAA to leverage these research and development 
efforts as it integrates UAS into the national airspace. The 
Committee expects the FAA to use the resources provided for UAS 
research under the Committee recommendation to collect and 
evaluate data and information from CBP and NASA UAS projects, 
and to collaborate with these partners on research efforts 
necessary to integrate UAS into the national airspace. The 
Committee also encourages the FAA to study how the Air Force 
conducts routine UAS operations, including the safe takeoff and 
landing of multiple platforms in a short period of time, as 
part of its airspace integration efforts.
    Alternative Fuels for General Aviation.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $6,000,000 for research that supports 
alternative fuels for general aviation. This funding level is 
$300,000 above the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 
2014 enacted level.
    NextGen--Environmental Research--Aircraft Technologies, 
Fuels, and Metrics.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$21,514,000 for NextGen environmental research. This funding 
level is $2,000,000 above the budget request and $5,465,000 
below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The Committee 
recommendation provides funding above the budget request to 
support the Continuous Low Energy, Emissions and Noise [CLEEN] 
program. Under the CLEEN program, the FAA partners with the 
aviation industry to develop and test aircraft technologies 
that reduce noise, emissions and fuel burn. The Committee 
recommendation also includes an additional $3,000,000 above the 
budget request for the CLEEN program in the appropriation for 
FAA's facilities and equipment. In total, the Committee 
recommendation provides $21,200,000 for the CLEEN program, an 
increase of $5,000,000 above the budget request.
    National Center for Advanced Materials Performance.--The 
FAA has effectively partnered with the National Center for 
Advanced Materials Performance [NCAMP] on mutually beneficial 
initiatives that reduce Federal spending and improve FAA 
standardization for aviation oversight. The Committee believes 
that NCAMP will similarly contribute to future initiatives 
within the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation [NNMI] 
enterprise, and as such, the Committee encourages the FAA to 
recommend adding NCAMP to the NNMI framework.

                       GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2014 enacted      2015 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resources from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund:
    Limitation on obligations..........................     $3,350,000,000     $2,900,000,000     $3,480,000,000
    Liquidation of contract authorization..............      3,200,000,000      3,200,000,000      3,200,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$3,480,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year 
2015. The recommended limitation on obligations is $130,000,000 
more than the enacted level for fiscal year 2014, and 
$580,000,000 more than the budget estimate. Under the 
administration's request, large commercial airports no longer 
receive formula grants from the program, but they would be 
allowed to raise their passenger facility charges to finance 
capital improvements. The Committee notes that an increase to 
passenger facility charges was considered as part of the debate 
over the bill to reauthorize the FAA. That increase, however, 
was not included in the final legislation. The Committee 
therefore recommends a funding level that would fund capital 
improvements at all airports that support our Nation's air 
transportation system.
    In addition, the Committee recommends a liquidating cash 
appropriation of $3,200,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports. 
The recommended level is equal to the budget estimate and the 
fiscal year 2014 enacted level. This appropriation is 
sufficient to cover the liquidation of all obligations incurred 
pursuant to the limitation on obligations set forward in the 
bill.
    Protecting Infrastructure at Our Nation's Airports.--The 
administration's budget request would rescind $130,000,000 in 
additional contract authority that was provided in fiscal year 
2014 under section 48112 of title 49, United States Code. This 
section of the code provides new contract authority when the 
amount appropriated for the FAA's facilities and equipment is 
less than the amount authorized. The 2014 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act provided $130,000,000 less for the FAA's 
facilities and equipment than the authorized level, which 
created $130,000,000 of additional contract authority for 
grants-in-aid to airports. Because the 2014 obligation 
limitation did not provide sufficient room to spend the 
additional contract authority, it remains available today.
    The Committee recommendation does not include the 
Administration's proposed rescission because it would put 
future airport investments at risk. The rescission would 
artificially lower the total program level for grants-in-aid to 
airports when the Congressional Budget Office constructs its 
next baseline. By lowering the total program level for 2015, 
the last year of the authorization period, this lower program 
level would be carried through each of the following years. As 
a result, the rescission would require the authorizing 
committees to find an offset in order to return the program to 
its $3,350,000,000 funding level in the next authorization 
period.
    The Committee recommendation instead uses the additional 
contract authority to support an additional $130,000,000 in 
obligation limitation for grants-in-aid to airports. The 
Committee recommendation also sets aside this funding for 
investments in FAA's facilities and equipment, and lowers the 
funding provided in the Facilities and Equipment account by an 
equal amount, since the contract authority itself was created 
when those needs received less investment. Recognizing that the 
funding is provided through the grants-in-aid to airports 
program, however, the Committee recommendation requires that 
the funding support facilities and equipment that are located 
on airport property. Such investments include runway safety 
areas, runway status lights, landing and navigational lighting 
systems, and air traffic control tower improvements and 
replacements.
    Finally, the Committee recommendation includes a rescission 
of any contract authority that would be created under section 
48112 in fiscal year 2015. This rescission would not affect the 
baseline.
    Airport Privatization.--Congress created the Airport 
Privatization Pilot Program in 1996 to attract private 
companies to lease or buy public airports. The Committee is 
aware there are some public airports interested in being sold 
or leased through the pilot program. The Department of 
Transportation has the discretionary authority to waive 
existing Federal funding repayment requirements. The Committee 
expects the Department to use its discretionary authority to 
waive repayment of past Federal funds at privatized airports 
judiciously. Last year, the Committee directed the Government 
Accountability Office [GAO] to evaluate the benefits, costs, 
and trade-offs of airport public-private partnerships; how 
public officials have identified and acted to protect the 
public interest in these arrangements; and the Federal role in 
such public-private partnerships and potential changes in this 
role. The Committee looks forward to examining GAO's report 
when it is issued.
    Administrative Expenses.--The Committee recommends 
$107,100,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding 
level is equal to the budget request, and $500,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    Airport Cooperative Research.--The Committee recommends 
$15,000,000 for the airport cooperative research program. This 
funding level is equal to the budget estimate and the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level.
    Airport Technology.--The Committee recommends $29,750,000 
for airport technology research. This funding level is equal to 
the budget request, and $250,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 
level.
    The Committee recommends that the FAA study whether it is 
appropriate to expand the installation of foreign object debris 
detection technology at hub airports in order to increase 
safety.
    Small Community Air Service Development Program [SCASDP].--
The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the Small Community Air 
Service Development Program. This funding level is $2,000,000 
more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The 
administration requested no funds for this program for fiscal 
year 2015.
    The Small Community Air Service Development Program 
[SCASDP] was initially established to help small communities 
throughout the country enhance air service and address airfare 
issues. In doing so, the program has played an instrumental 
role in the economic growth and transformation of many 
communities. The Committee directs the Department to submit a 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no 
later than 1 year after enactment of this act on how 
communities have benefitted from the program, how SCADSP grants 
have achieved the program's goals, and what airports are doing 
to respond to air transportation needs, particularly in rural 
areas.

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

    Section 110 limits the number of technical staff years at 
the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to no more 
than 600 in fiscal year 2015.
    Section 111 prohibits funds in this act from being used to 
adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to 
provide the FAA ``without cost'' buildings, maintenance, or 
space for FAA services. The prohibition does not apply to 
negotiations between the FAA and airport sponsors concerning 
``below market'' rates for such services or to grant assurances 
that require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to 
the FAA for air traffic control facilities.
    Section 112 permits the Administrator to reimburse FAA 
appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C. 
41742(a)(1) as fees are collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 
45303.
    Section 113 allows funds received to reimburse the FAA for 
providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities 
to be credited to the Operations account.
    Section 114 prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium 
pay except in those cases where the individual actually worked 
on a Sunday.
    Section 115 prohibits the FAA from using funds provided in 
the bill to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates 
through a Government-issued credit card.
    Section 116 allows all airports experiencing the required 
level of boardings through charter and scheduled air service to 
be eligible for funds under 49 U.S.C. 47114(c).
    Section 117 requires approval from the Assistant Secretary 
for Administration of the Department of Transportation for 
retention bonuses for any FAA employee.
    Section 118 limits to 20 percent the cost-share required 
under the contract tower cost-share program.
    Section 119 requires that, upon request by a private owner 
or operator of an aircraft, the Secretary block the display of 
that owner or operator's aircraft registration number in the 
Aircraft Situational Display to Industry program.
    Section 119A prohibits funds in this act for salaries and 
expenses of more than nine political and Presidential 
appointees in the Federal Aviation Administration.
    Section 119B requires the FAA to conduct public outreach 
and provide justification to the Committee before increasing 
fees under section 44721 of title 49, United States Code.
    Section 119C prohibits funds from being used to change 
weight restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro 
Airport in New Jersey.
    Section 119D requires the FAA to notify the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations at least 90 days before 
closing a regional operations center or reducing the services 
it provides. In addition, the Committee directs the FAA to 
provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no 
later than 120 days after enactment of this act a strategic 
plan for staffing and operating its regional operations 
centers.
    Section 119E clarifies the name of the FAA center of 
excellence on advanced materials.
    Section 119F provides an average Federal share for any 
airport project located in a public lands State and no more 
than 15 miles from the border of another public lands State 
with a higher Federal share.

                     Federal Highway Administration

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration 
[FHWA] is, in partnership with State and local governments, to 
foster the development of a safe, efficient, and effective 
highway and intermodal system nationwide including access to 
and within national forests, national parks, Indian lands, and 
other public lands.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level 
of $40,995,000,000 would be provided for the activities of the 
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation is $7,567,248,000 less than the budget request 
and equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The following 
table summarizes the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2014 enacted      2015 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways program obligation limitation.....    $40,256,000,000    $47,323,248,000    $40,256,000,000
Contract authority exempt from the obligation                  739,000,000        739,000,000        739,000,000
 limitation............................................
Fixing and accelerating surface transportation.........  .................        500,000,000  .................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     40,995,000,000     48,562,248,000     40,995,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation, 2014........................................    $416,100,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     439,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     426,100,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This limitation on obligations provides for the salaries 
and expenses of the Federal Highway Administration for program 
management, direction, and coordination; engineering guidance 
to Federal and State agencies; and advisory and support 
services in field offices.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$426,100,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. This 
limitation is $12,900,000 less than the budget request and 
$10,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    In addition, $3,248,000 in contract authority above this 
limitation is made available for the administrative expenses of 
the Appalachian Regional Commission in accordance with section 
104 of title 23, United States Code.
    The Committee recommendation includes bill language that 
would make of sufficient contract authority available for 
FHWA's administrative expenses to meet its needs in fiscal year 
2015. However, the Committee recognizes that budgetary 
constraints will continue to pose a challenge for meeting 
FHWA's administrative needs for years to come. For this reason, 
the Committee directs FHWA to submit to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations a strategic plan for funding its 
administrative expenses for the next 6 years at an annual level 
of contract authority that equals the funding authorized under 
Public Law 112-141 for fiscal year 2014. The Committee expects 
this plan to include details on the activities and services 
that FHWA currently conducts at its headquarters and division 
offices, the activities and services that could be accommodated 
over the next 6 years, and any impact of this plan on 
operations of State departments of transportation. The 
Committee also expects this plan to address staffing levels at 
both FHWA headquarters and division offices under current 
funding levels and funding levels projected for the next 6 
years. FHWA should submit this plan no later than 120 days 
after enactment.

                          FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2014........................................ $40,256,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................  47,323,248,000
Committee recommendation................................  40,256,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal-aid highway program provides financial support 
to States and localities for development, construction, and 
repair of highways and bridges through grants. The program is 
financed from the Highway Trust Fund and most of the funds are 
distributed through apportionments and allocations to States. 
Title 23 of the United States Code and other supporting 
legislation provide authority for the various activities of the 
FHWA. Funding is provided by contract authority, with program 
levels established by annual limitations on obligations set in 
appropriations acts.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2015 Federal-
aid highways obligations to $40,256,000,000, which is 
$7,567,248,000 less than the budget request and equal to the 
fiscal year 2014 enacted level for the Federal-aid highway 
program. This funding level is consistent with the most recent 
authorization law, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act [MAP-21].
    In addition, the bill includes a provision that allows the 
FHWA to collect and spend fees in order to pay for the services 
of expert firms in the field of municipal and project finance 
to assist the agency in the provision of TIFIA credit 
instruments.
    Recent Emergencies.--Recent emergencies--including the 
mudslide in the State of Washington, flooding in Alabama and 
Florida, and damage to the I-813 bridge in Delaware--call 
attention to the importance of the Federal Highway 
Administration's Emergency Relief [ER] program. This program 
provides essential funding to help communities repair or 
rebuild their roads and bridges after a declared emergency. The 
Committee urges FHWA to continue providing States with 
allocations from the ER program in a timely manner so that 
communities do not have to shoulder the financial burden of 
these emergencies longer than necessary.
    Benefit Cost Analysis.--The Federal-aid Highways program 
represents an important partnership between the Federal 
Government and each State department of transportation. The 
Federal role has primarily been to set standards, ensure 
compatibility among State systems, provide capital assistance, 
and oversee highway construction. State governments operate the 
highway system and set local priorities for constructing and 
repairing roads and bridges.
    While remaining sensitive to the role of State governments 
in setting priorities among highway projects, the Committee 
believes that the Department of Transportation plays an 
important role in ensuring that Federal resources are not spent 
on wasteful projects. Benefit cost analysis is an important 
economic tool that can help State and local governments target 
their transportation funding to the most effective investments. 
Using benefit cost analysis, a State or local government would 
compare the monetary value of all benefits and costs that 
accrue during the life of a project. This process forces the 
government to evaluate the value of all of the project's 
benefits, recognize the full cost of the project, and 
acknowledge whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs.
    The Committee is aware of FHWA's efforts to support State 
and local governments in their use of benefit cost analysis. 
FHWA offers technical assistance to State and local governments 
that are already engaged in benefit cost analysis, and looks 
for ways to improve the estimates and models used in the 
analysis.
    The Committee urges the Department to take a more active 
role in advancing the use of benefit cost analysis. The 
Committee recommends the Department encourage State and local 
governments to evaluate project costs and benefits using an 
appropriate analytical framework, either through strict benefit 
cost analysis or through a less formal structure if a project 
size does not warrant a more rigorous approach. The Department 
should ensure that FHWA division offices reach out to State 
departments of transportation in order to determine if the 
State could more effectively utilize benefit cost analysis as 
it sets its priorities.
    The Committee also directs the Department to evaluate the 
use of benefit cost analysis by State departments of 
transportation, and to issue a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations no later than 180 days after 
enactment on the extent to which State departments of 
transportation use benefit cost analysis when making decisions 
and setting priorities, the quality of such analysis, 
challenges that State departments of transportation face when 
trying to use benefit cost analysis, and strategies for 
addressing those challenges.
    Innovative Project Implementation.--The Committee 
recognizes that State and local governments have benefited from 
a regional approach to developing public private partnerships. 
Resource programs can accelerate the delivery of essential 
transportation projects and help meet the increasing backlog of 
infrastructure needs by connecting public agencies with private 
capital and by offering technical assistance. The Committee 
therefore encourages the Department to use funds authorized 
under section 503(c) of title 23, United States Code, for the 
demonstration and evaluation of regional approaches to 
innovative finance. In conducting its work, the Department 
should take into account geographic diversity, recognize multi-
State or multi-jurisdictional partnerships, and give priority 
consideration to approaches that ensure public interests are 
protected by including measures such as accounting for life 
cycle costs of building and maintaining infrastructure. The 
Department also should coordinate its efforts with the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and 
the Army Corps of Engineers to identify ways in which State and 
local governments require additional capacity to access private 
capital.
    Infrastructure Planning.--Severe weather and other natural 
disasters can have serious impacts on transportation systems 
and the communities that rely on them, disrupting highways and 
public transportation systems, and slowing local economies to a 
crawl. Rebuilding and resuming normal operations in the wake of 
these events can be difficult and costly. To address this 
issue, at the local level, many communities are beginning to 
incorporate the impact of these events into the planning, 
design, and construction of transportation services. Washington 
State, for example, has used the results of a statewide 
infrastructure vulnerability assessment in its corridor plans 
and project-level environmental studies.
    The Committee recognizes that taking into account severe 
weather and other natural disasters in infrastructure planning 
and building is a cost-effective and important step in ensuring 
the longevity of our transportation system. It helps to protect 
the critical corridors that businesses, workers, and families 
rely on every day. But as standards continue to develop, some 
states lack the technical expertise to incorporate 
vulnerability assessments into their planning efforts. 
Therefore, the Committee urges FHWA to define, and make 
available to States, best practices for resiliency planning. 
The Committee further urges FHWA to provide technical 
assistance to states and planning organizations to help them 
incorporate such considerations into the planning process. The 
Committee provides this direction also to FTA, and encourages 
both modal administrations to coordinate their efforts with 
FRA.
    Safety Performance Measures and Reporting Requirements.--On 
March 11, 2014, FHWA proposed a new regulation to establish 
safety performance measures for the Highway Safety Improvement 
Program [HSIP], as required by section 1203 of the Moving Ahead 
for Progress in the 21st Century Act [MAP-21]. FHWA's proposal 
would establish measures for the number of fatalities, fatality 
rate, number of serious injuries, and serious injury rate, as 
required by MAP-21. However, recognizing the increase in 
pedestrian and bicycle fatalities, the Secretary of 
Transportation should establish separate safety performance 
measures related to non-motorized traffic for the purpose of 
carrying out HSIP requirements. FHWA should define these 
performance measures specifically to evaluate the number of 
fatalities and serious injuries for pedestrian and bicycle 
crashes. The Committee notes that NHTSA already uses 
performance measures for pedestrian fatalities in administering 
its highway traffic safety grant program, and the Committee 
also understands that NHTSA intends to establish performance 
measures for bicycle fatalities when it administers its fiscal 
year 2015 traffic safety grants. Finally, the statutory 
deadline for completing the HSIP regulation has come and gone, 
and the Committee directs FHWA to publish its final rule on 
safety performance measures in a timely manner.
    Statewide Planning in Alaska.--The Committee is concerned 
that the State of Alaska has not adequately addressed the needs 
and concerns of boroughs and local communities as part of the 
statewide transportation planning process, and seeks to ensure 
that FHWA meets the intent of the statewide improvement program 
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 135. Therefore FHWA shall work with the 
State of Alaska to ensure all necessary coordination and 
consultation occurs with areas outside of a metropolitan area 
to address infrastructure development needs.
    Advanced Composite Bridge Technologies.--The Committee 
supports the Technology and Innovation Deployment Program's 
efforts to improve the safety, efficiency, reliability, and 
performance of our Nation's transportation infrastructure. It 
also notes the growing need to accelerate the adoption of 
proven, high-payoff, and innovative practices, technologies, 
and materials that lead to faster construction and cost-
effective rehabilitation of efficient and safe bridges. The 
Committee encourages the Department to use funds authorized 
under 503(c) of title 23, United States Code, for the 
demonstration and deployment of advanced composite materials in 
bridge replacement and rehabilitation.
    Environmental Reviews.--The Committee recognizes the 
department's efforts to implement the administratively related 
streamlining provisions included in the most recently passed 
authorization law for surface transportation. The Committee 
encourages the Department to continue its efforts to implement 
these changes nationally, and recognizes the efforts made by 
the administration to work cooperatively with other Federal 
agencies and with State governments, including its work with 
the State of Utah on its Mountain Accord approach for a 
regional transportation, land use, natural resource and 
economic solution.
    State Apportionments.--The following table shows the 
expected obligation limitation provided to each State under the 
Committee's recommended funding level:

                                FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2014 enacted    2015 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Formula Programs

Alabama......................................................     $666,523,393     $780,571,005     $666,523,393
Alaska.......................................................      431,280,533      503,737,124      431,280,533
Arizona......................................................      658,807,679      763,580,755      658,807,679
Arkansas.....................................................      444,300,322      521,265,359      444,300,322
California...................................................    3,241,833,216    3,736,277,886    3,241,833,216
Colorado.....................................................      481,581,822      557,458,050      481,581,822
Connecticut..................................................      442,788,723      513,222,354      442,788,723
Delaware.....................................................      149,010,187      173,122,046      149,010,187
District of Columbia.........................................      143,658,866      166,602,143      143,658,866
Florida......................................................    1,704,023,915    1,990,332,185    1,704,023,915
Georgia......................................................    1,162,185,252    1,350,474,482    1,162,185,252
Hawaii.......................................................      145,600,898      169,780,194      145,600,898
Idaho........................................................      251,629,382      293,466,533      251,629,382
Illinois.....................................................    1,280,430,045    1,482,096,858    1,280,430,045
Indiana......................................................      838,444,365      977,267,890      838,444,365
Iowa.........................................................      442,085,658      504,986,976      442,085,658
Kansas.......................................................      339,953,410      396,449,166      339,953,410
Kentucky.....................................................      597,649,211      697,488,318      597,649,211
Louisiana....................................................      602,089,506      706,852,415      602,089,506
Maine........................................................      162,507,557      189,146,434      162,507,557
Maryland.....................................................      529,861,416      612,146,732      529,861,416
Massachusetts................................................      547,286,674      631,090,267      547,286,674
Michigan.....................................................      948,056,298    1,098,666,593      948,056,298
Minnesota....................................................      573,824,109      668,705,616      573,824,109
Mississippi..................................................      425,041,105      497,266,513      425,041,105
Missouri.....................................................      832,108,062      973,038,925      832,108,062
Montana......................................................      360,802,930      421,335,582      360,802,930
Nebraska.....................................................      260,074,708      302,874,327      260,074,708
Nevada.......................................................      327,084,874      378,148,323      327,084,874
New Hampshire................................................      148,752,581      172,557,220      148,752,581
New Jersey...................................................      899,681,983    1,037,768,218      899,681,983
New Mexico...................................................      322,855,350      377,281,166      322,855,350
New York.....................................................    1,512,702,959    1,743,270,125    1,512,702,959
North Carolina...............................................      938,667,262    1,089,261,829      938,667,262
North Dakota.................................................      218,401,631      254,759,902      218,401,631
Ohio.........................................................    1,180,794,980    1,371,742,972    1,180,794,980
Oklahoma.....................................................      570,449,410      665,898,629      570,449,410
Oregon.......................................................      439,640,806      513,039,905      439,640,806
Pennsylvania.................................................    1,477,160,518    1,713,669,874    1,477,160,518
Rhode Island.................................................      192,449,224      224,279,268      192,449,224
South Carolina...............................................      602,320,145      687,944,588      602,320,145
South Dakota.................................................      242,397,515      283,500,910      242,397,515
Tennessee....................................................      726,319,740      849,508,126      726,319,740
Texas........................................................    3,106,663,529    3,534,634,864    3,106,663,529
Utah.........................................................      305,432,396      348,794,060      305,432,396
Vermont......................................................      178,694,706      207,906,478      178,694,706
Virginia.....................................................      895,690,252    1,043,107,631      895,690,252
Washington...................................................      596,788,979      694,660,799      596,788,979
West Virginia................................................      384,231,972      448,931,875      384,231,972
Wisconsin....................................................      677,036,603      788,339,246      677,036,603
Wyoming......................................................      220,152,132      257,587,195      220,152,132
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................   34,827,808,789   40,365,895,931   34,827,808,789
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
Allocated programs...........................................    4,995,844,093    6,512,162,577    4,995,844,093
Penalties under sections 154 and 164 of title 23, United           432,347,118      445,189,492      432,347,118
 States Code.................................................
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................   40,256,000,000   47,323,248,000   40,256,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Program Descriptions.--The roads and bridges that make up 
our Nation's highway infrastructure are built, operated, and 
maintained through the joint efforts of Federal, State, and 
local governments. States have much flexibility to use Federal-
aid Highway funds to best meet their individual needs and 
priorities, with FHWA's assistance and oversight.
    MAP-21, the current highway, highway safety, and transit 
authorization law, made funding for Federal-aid Highways 
available in the following categories of spending:
  --National Highway Performance Program [NHPP].--This program 
        provides support for the condition and performance of 
        the national highway system [NHS], and for the 
        construction of new facilities on the NHS. Projects 
        funded through the NHPP must support progress toward 
        the achievement of national performance goals for 
        improving infrastructure condition, safety, mobility, 
        or freight movement on the national highway system. 
        Such projects must also support progress toward the 
        achievement of performance targets established in a 
        State's asset management plan, and must be consistent 
        with requirements for metropolitan and statewide 
        planning. Funding for this program also supports the 
        Transportation Alternatives program, and State planning 
        and research.
  --Surface Transportation Program.--The Surface Transportation 
        Program provides flexible funding that may be used by 
        States and localities for projects that preserve and 
        improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-
        aid highway; bridge and tunnel projects on any public 
        road; pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and 
        transit capital projects, including intercity bus 
        terminals. Funding for this program also supports the 
        Transportation Alternatives program, and State planning 
        and research. A portion of the program's funding is set 
        aside for improvements to off-system bridges.
  --Highway Safety Improvement Program.--This program is 
        designed to achieve a significant reduction in traffic 
        fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, 
        including roads on tribal lands and other public roads 
        that are not owned by a State government. An eligible 
        highway safety improvement project is any strategy, 
        activity or project on a public road that corrects or 
        improves a hazardous road location or feature, or 
        addresses a highway safety problem. Such projects must 
        be consistent with the State's strategic highway safety 
        plan, which must be based on analysis of crash data. 
        Funding for this program also supports the 
        Transportation Alternatives program, and State planning 
        and research. In addition, a set-aside from the STP 
        program funds the Railway-Highway Crossings Program, 
        which supports safety improvements to reduce the number 
        of fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public grade 
        crossings.
  --Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program 
        [CMAQ].--The CMAQ program provides a flexible funding 
        source to State and local governments for 
        transportation projects and programs that help meet the 
        requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available 
        to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas 
        that do not meet the national ambient air quality 
        standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate 
        matter. Funding for this program also supports the 
        Transportation Alternatives program, and State planning 
        and research.
  --Metropolitan Planning.--The metropolitan planning process 
        establishes a cooperative, continuous, and 
        comprehensive framework for making transportation 
        investment decisions in metropolitan areas. Program 
        oversight is a joint responsibility of the Federal 
        Highway Administration and the Federal Transit 
        Administration.
  --Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 
        Program [TIFIA].--This program provides Federal credit 
        assistance to eligible surface transportation projects, 
        including highway, transit, intercity passenger rail, 
        some types of freight rail, and intermodal freight 
        transfer facilities. TIFIA is designed to fill market 
        gaps and leverage substantial private co-investment by 
        providing projects with supplemental or subordinate 
        debt. The program may provide credit to States, 
        localities, or other public authorities, as well as 
        private entities undertaking projects sponsored by 
        public authorities. TIFIA offers direct loans, loan 
        guarantees and lines of credit.
  --Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal 
        Facilities.--The ferry program provides funding for the 
        construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal 
        facilities. Funds are distributed according to 
        statutory formula.
  --Tribal Transportation Program.--The Tribal Transportation 
        Program is designed to provide access to basic 
        community services and to enhance the quality of life 
        in Indian country. Funding is distributed among tribes 
        based on a statutory formula.
  --Federal Lands Transportation Program.--This program funds 
        projects that improve access within federally owned 
        lands, including national forests, national parks, 
        national wildlife refuges, and national recreation 
        areas. Each year, funds are provided to the National 
        Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
        and funds are distributed on a competitive basis to the 
        U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and 
        the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
  --Federal Lands Access Program.--This program provides funds 
        for projects on transportation facilities that are 
        located on or adjacent to federally owned lands, or 
        that provide access to those areas. Funds are 
        distributed by formula among States that have Federal 
        lands managed by the National Park Service, the U.S. 
        Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 
        Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of 
        Engineers.
  --State Planning and Research.--This program provides funding 
        for States to conduct planning and research activities. 
        The funds are used to establish a cooperative, 
        continuous, and comprehensive framework for making 
        transportation investment decisions, and to carry out 
        transportation research activities through each of the 
        States. The program is funded with resources from the 
        National Highway Performance Program, the Surface 
        Transportation Program, and the Highway Safety 
        Improvement Program, and the Congestion Mitigation and 
        Air Quality Program.
  --Transportation Alternatives.--This program provides funding 
        for a variety of alternative transportation projects, 
        including trails for pedestrians and bicyclists; 
        transportation systems that provide safe routes for 
        non-drivers, including children, older adults, and 
        people with disabilities; and environmental mitigation 
        projects.
  --Territorial and Puerto Rico Highway Program.--This program 
        supports a highway program in the Commonwealth of 
        Puerto Rico, and it provides funding to assist the 
        governments of the U.S. territories with highway 
        investments and necessary inter-island connectors.
  --Emergency Relief.--The Emergency Relief program provides 
        funds for emergency repairs and permanent repairs on 
        Federal-aid highways and roads on Federal lands that 
        the Secretary finds have suffered serious damage as a 
        result of natural disasters or catastrophic failure 
        from an external cause. This program receives an 
        appropriation of $100,000,000 in contract authority 
        each year from the Highway Trust Fund, and this funding 
        is exempt from the obligation limitation imposed on the 
        Federal-aid Highway Program. In addition to this 
        contract authority, the program receives such sums as 
        may be necessary from the general fund of the Treasury 
        to meet emergency needs.
  --Research, Technology and Education.--The Federal Highway 
        Administration manages the following programs that 
        support research, technology development, and education 
        activities:
    --The Highway Research and Development Program funds 
            strategic investments in research activities that 
            address current and emerging highway transportation 
            needs.
    --The Technology and Innovation Deployment Program funds 
            efforts to accelerate the implementation and 
            delivery of new innovations and technologies that 
            result from highway research and development to 
            benefit all aspects of highway transportation.
    --The Training and Education Program supports FHWA's 
            efforts to train the current and future 
            transportation workforce, share knowledge with 
            transportation professionals, and provide training 
            that addresses the full lifecycle of the highway 
            transportation system.
    In addition to these programs, funding provided under the 
Federal-aid Highways Program supports the Intelligent 
Transportation Systems Program, University Transportation 
Centers and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. These 
programs are administered by the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Research and Technology. The Committee 
recommendation would elevate RITA's responsibilities to the 
Office of the Secretary, as requested by the administration.

                 LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2014.................................... $40,995,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................  48,062,248,000
Committee recommendation................................  40,995,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal-aid Highway program is funded through contract 
authority paid out of the Highway Trust Fund. Most forms of 
budget authority provide the authority to enter into 
obligations and then to liquidate those obligations. Put 
another way, it allows a Federal agency to commit to spending 
money on specified activities and then to actually spend that 
money. In contrast, contract authority provides only the 
authority to enter into obligations, but not the authority to 
liquidate those obligations. The authority to liquidate 
obligations--to actually spend the money committed with the 
contract authority--must be provided separately. The authority 
to liquidate obligations under the Federal-aid highways program 
is provided under this heading. This liquidating authority 
allows FHWA to follow through on commitments already allowed 
under current law; it does not provide the authority to enter 
into new commitments for Federal spending.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $40,995,000,000. The recommended level is $7,067,248,000 
less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level. This level of liquidating authority is necessary 
to pay outstanding obligations from various highway accounts 
pursuant to this and prior appropriations acts.

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

    Section 120 distributes obligation authority among Federal-
aid Highway programs.
    Section 121 continues a provision that credits funds 
received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the 
Federal-aid highways account.
    Section 122 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy 
America requirements.
    Section 123 requires congressional notification before the 
Department provides credit assistance under the TIFIA program.
    Section 124 makes contract authority available for FHWA's 
administrative expenses.

              Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] was 
established within the Department of Transportation by the 
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act [MCSIA] (Public Law 106-
159) in December 1999. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier 
safety responsibilities were under the jurisdiction of the 
Federal Highway Administration.
    MCSIA, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU], and 
the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act [MAP-21] 
provide funding authorization for FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety 
Operations and Programs and Motor Carrier Safety Grants.
    FMCSA's mission is to promote safe commercial motor vehicle 
and motor coach operations, as well as reduce the number and 
severity of accidents. Agency resources and activities prevent 
and mitigate commercial motor vehicle and motor coach accidents 
through education, regulation, enforcement, stakeholder 
training, technological innovation, and improved information 
systems. FMCSA is also responsible for ensuring that all 
commercial vehicles entering the United States along its 
southern and northern borders comply with all Federal motor 
carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations. To 
accomplish these activities, FMCSA works with Federal, State, 
and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, 
highway safety organizations, and the public.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total level of $592,300,000 for 
obligations and liquidations from the Highway Trust Fund. This 
level is $76,223,000 less than the request and $7,300,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

              MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2014........................................    $259,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015 (limitation)......................     315,770,000
Committee recommendation................................     271,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides the necessary resources to support 
motor carrier safety program activities and maintain the 
agency's administrative infrastructure. Funding supports 
nationwide motor carrier safety and consumer enforcement 
efforts, including Federal safety enforcement activities at the 
United States/Mexico border to ensure that Mexican carriers 
entering the United States are in compliance with FMCSA 
regulations. Resources are also provided to fund motor carrier 
regulatory development and implementation, information 
management, research and technology, safety education and 
outreach, and the 24-hour safety and consumer telephone 
hotline.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and 
authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract 
authorization of $271,000,000 for FMCSA's Operations and 
Programs. The recommendation is $12,000,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $44,770,000 less than the 
budget request. Of the total limitation on obligations, 
$9,000,000 is for research and technology, $2,300,000 is for 
commercial motor vehicle operator grants, and $34,545,000 is 
for information management.
    Compliance, Safety and Accountability Program [CSA].--In 
1999, NTSB concluded that FMCSA's oversight of motor carrier 
operators was ineffective because its safety fitness rating 
methodology was insufficient. Furthermore, the agency relied on 
a labor-intensive, comprehensive audit process that was only 
capable of reaching 3 percent of the industry annually. The 
NTSB recommended that FMCSA develop a more efficient method of 
evaluating operator and driver performance into its oversight 
and enforcement regime.
    In response, FMCSA began to implement its Compliance, 
Safety and Accountability Program [CSA] in 2004. The CSA 
program represents a complete overhaul of FMCSA's systems and 
investigation practices, and is designed to better target the 
agency's resources at the riskiest carriers. The goal of CSA is 
to use performance data to target interventions and help 
carriers to come into compliance. The CSA program uses the new 
Safety Measurement System [SMS] to identify motor carriers that 
are at risk of causing a crash or pose a significant safety 
hazard.
    The Safety Fitness Determination [SFD] rulemaking is the 
cornerstone of CSA. This rule will allow FMCSA to use a 
combination of performance data, on-road safety information, 
and investigations to determine whether a motor carrier is fit 
to operate. It was initially proposed to be completed in 2009, 
but the notice of proposed rulemaking is now targeted for 
publication at the end of the calendar year, almost a year 
later than the Department's plans called for a year ago. The 
delays in moving forward on this rule are excessive. The 
Committee has included bill language requiring the Secretary to 
initiate a rulemaking no later than December 2014. This 
rulemaking will be subject to great scrutiny, which is likely 
to require a significant amount of time. Until the SFD 
rulemaking is complete, FMCSA continues to rely on a rating and 
enforcement system that fails to place sufficient emphasis on 
both driver and vehicle qualifications, thereby compromising 
safety on our Nation's highways.
    The Committee strongly supports the agency's efforts to 
improve its programs and remains focused on ensuring CSA 
delivers the promised results. The Committee is troubled by 
FMCSA's failure to meet critical milestones for implementing 
this new system. Therefore, the Committee requests that GAO 
continue to monitor the implementation of CSA and evaluate 
FMCSA's ability to meet its designated milestones.
    Electronic Logging Devices.--In 1977, NTSB issued its first 
recommendation on the use of on-board data recording devices, 
or electronic logging devices [ELDs], to provide an efficient 
and reliable means of tracking the number of hours a commercial 
motor vehicle operator drives. To this day, this recommendation 
(H-07-41) remains open, and NTSB considers FMCSA's actions to 
address this safety issue unacceptable.
    MAP-21 (section 32301(b) of Public Law 112-141; 49 U.S.C. 
31137) mandated that FMCSA issue a rule by October 2013 
requiring all interstate motor carriers to be equipped with 
ELDs to improve compliance and enforcement with hours of 
service regulations. The agency was delayed in implementing the 
rule by a legal challenge to an earlier regulatory action on 
the limited use of ELD's for operators with persistent hours of 
service violations. In March 2014, FMCSA finally issued a 
proposed rule to comply with the mandates of MAP-21. The 
proposed rule is expected to significantly reduce the paperwork 
burden to comply with hours-of-service recordkeeping, reduce 
crashes by fatigued drivers, and prevent approximately 20 
fatalities and 434 injuries each year, according to FMCSA. The 
comment period was recently extended through June 26, 2014. The 
Committee supports the expanded use of ELDs and encourages 
FMCSA to work aggressively to implement the ELD mandate. To 
that end, the bill includes language to reinforce the 
importance of addressing this regulatory action in a timely 
manner and requires the rule to be finalized no later than 
January 30, 2015.
    High-Risk Carriers.--Since fiscal year 2008, the Committee 
has required reports on the agency's ability to meet the 
requirement to conduct compliance reviews on all motor carriers 
identified as high-risk. Since the agency first began reporting 
its performance to the Committee, compliance with this 
requirement has improved significantly, from completing reviews 
of 69 percent of high-risk carriers in fiscal year 2008 to 93 
percent in the 2013 calendar year.
    In December 2010, FMCSA deployed the new Carrier Safety 
Measurement System [CSMS] as part of its CSA program. CSMS more 
precisely identifies motor carriers that pose the highest 
safety risk by quantifying the on-road safety performance of 
carriers in seven Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement 
Categories [BASICs] when a serious violation has been 
discovered. Under CSA, and consistent with section 4138 of 
SAFETEA-LU, any motor carrier with certain BASIC alerts for 2 
consecutive months is now labeled ``mandatory'' under CSMS. 
Mandatory motor carriers are prioritized for an onsite 
investigation if they have not undergone an investigation in 
the last 24 months. Under FMCSA regulations, carriers 
identified as mandatory must have a compliance review conducted 
within 1 year.
    FMCSA contends that the tracking and monitoring of high-
risk carriers under CSMS is a manually intensive process 
involving a variety of data systems. Further, the monitoring of 
high-risk carriers operating under consent decrees is even more 
complex. Consent decrees allow high-risk motor carriers to 
continue to provide service when they receive an unsatisfactory 
rating by setting conditions and performance requirements on 
their operations. Currently, the monitoring of consent decrees 
is a completely manual process. Automating these systems as 
much as possible would save time and resources, and would 
provide a higher level of safety compliance review. The 
Committee recommendation includes additional resources to 
automate these investigation and compliance processes. The 
Committee believes this will improve the agency's ability to 
monitor those carriers that pose the most significant safety 
risk to the public. The Committee directs FMCSA to provide a 
plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
within 60 days of enactment of this act on the information 
technology [IT] investments required for automation. The IT 
plan must define the total lifecycle and operating costs, 
identify a timeline for deployment, including relevant 
benchmarks to determine progress, and define performance 
metrics the agency will use to determine the time and resource 
savings resulting from automation.
    The Committee is concerned that the FMCSA's failure to 
investigate mandatory carriers in a timely fashion could lead 
to unsafe carriers operating on our roadways. For example, DND 
International, based in Naperville, Illinois, ranked in the 
bottom 10 percent of carriers for unsafe driving and bottom 5 
percent for hours-of-service violations, which finally led the 
FMCSA in August of last year to assign an investigator to 
conduct a ``focused investigation.'' FMCSA failed to conduct 
this investigation in a timely fashion, and on January 27, 
2014, a driver for DND International struck an Illinois State 
Police cruiser and an Illinois Toll Authority vehicle, both 
with activated emergency/warning lights, resulting in the death 
of the Toll Authority worker and life-threatening injuries to 
the police officer.
    FMCSA found that at the time of the crash, the driver had 
been on duty for more than 26 hours, with an opportunity for no 
more than a 5\1/2\-hour break. After the accident occurred, the 
Secretary and FMCSA found the company had an entirely 
ineffective disciplinary process and showed reckless disregard 
for hours-of-service rules. The investigators stated that the 
company's failure to monitor its drivers' time on duty was ``a 
key contributing factor'' in the wreck. FMCSA's CSA program 
identified this carrier as high-risk, but its failure to 
conduct an investigation in a timely manner allowed this 
chronically unsafe operator to continue to provide services on 
the Nation's highways, placing the public at risk.
    The Committee directs the DOT Office of Inspector General 
to conduct an audit of FMCSA's mandatory compliance review 
process to ensure motor carriers flagged for investigation are 
being investigated in a timely manner. The OIG should review 
whether or not the type of investigations FMCSA conducts is 
adequate enough to catch violations. The Committee is aware 
that the DOT is conducting an inter-agency review of these 
issues and the OIG is directed to review these findings during 
its audit.
    The Committee expects FMCSA to continue to prioritize these 
carriers for inspection and directs the agency to provide the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with an updated 
report on its ability to meet its requirements to evaluate 
mandatory carriers by April 2015 for the preceding fiscal year.
    Specially Constructed Rail Service Vehicles.--The Committee 
is concerned that FMCSA's Federal hours of service regulations, 
found in 49 CFR subsection 395.3, may not take into account the 
unique operating environment of specially trained drivers of 
commercial motor vehicles specifically constructed to service, 
inspect, maintain, and repair railroad track to support 
railroad safety and operations. The Committee encourages the 
FMCSA to collaborate with the rail service stakeholder 
community to consider an exemption for these rail service 
providers such that on-duty time could not include waiting time 
at a rail site. Instead, waiting time could be recorded as 
``off duty'' for purposes of subsection 395.8 and 395.15, and 
waiting time could not be included in calculating the 14-hour 
period in section 395.3(a)(2), the 60-hour period in section 
395.3(b)(1), or the 70-hour period in section 395.3(b)(2). This 
collaboration shall include providing technical assistance to 
the rail service stakeholder community as it considers an 
application for exemption from these specifics hours of service 
regulations.

                     NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION OF OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2014........................................     $13,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................................
Committee recommendation................................       8,300,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National Motor Carrier Safety program was established 
to promote motor carrier safety and help States develop motor 
carrier data systems.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and 
authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract 
authorizations from existing unobligated balances of $8,300,000 
for border and field facility improvements that are part of 
FMCSA's Capital Investment Plan.

                      MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Liquidation of
                                         contract        Limitation on
                                      authorization       obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014..............       $313,000,000       $313,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.............        352,753,000        352,753,000
Committee recommendation..........        313,000,000        313,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides the necessary resources for Federal 
grants to support State compliance, enforcement, and other 
programs. Grants are also provided to States for enforcement 
efforts at both the southern and northern borders to ensure 
that all points of entry into the United States are fortified 
with comprehensive safety measures; improvement of State 
commercial driver's license [CDL] oversight activities to 
prevent unqualified drivers from being issued CDLs; and the 
Performance Registration Information Systems and Management 
[PRISM] program, which links State motor vehicle registration 
systems with carrier safety data in order to identify unsafe 
commercial motor carriers.

                      MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and 
authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract 
authorization of $313,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants. 
The recommended limitation is equal to the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level and $39,753,000 less than the budget request. The 
Committee recommends a separate limitation on obligations for 
each grant program funded under this account with the funding 
allocation identified below. The obligation limitation listed 
below for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP] 
includes $218,000,000 for High Priority grants, of which 
$32,000,000 is for New Entrant grants.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor carrier safety assistance program [MCSAP]......       $218,000,000
Commercial driver's license program improvement               30,000,000
 grants..............................................
Border enforcement grants............................         32,000,000
Performance and registration information system                5,000,000
 management grant program............................
Commercial vehicle information systems and networks           25,000,000
 deployment program..................................
Safety data improvement grants.......................          1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMNINSTRATION

    Section 130 subjects the funds in this act to section 350 
of Public Law 107-87 in order to ensure the safety of all 
cross-border long haul operations conducted by Mexican-
domiciled commercial carriers.
    Section 131 limits funding from being used to deny the 
renewal of a hazardous material safety permit under certain 
conditions.
    Section 132 This provision allows States that issued 
Commercial License Permits [CLPs] to individuals under age 18 
prior to the May 9, 2011, rulemaking to continue to do so. 
FMCSA established a minimum age of 18 for issuance of a CLP 
without awareness of existing State rules and regulations at 
that time. In many States, commercial truck driving programs 
are offered through vocational training programs and the Job 
Corps targeted at students between the ages of 16 and 18. These 
programs help students prepare to drive commercial vehicles at 
age 18 and on the interstates after age 21, which are the 
minimum ages for Commercial Driver Licenses [CDLs] in all 
States.
    Section 133 temporarily suspends enforcement of the hours 
of service regulation related to the restart provisions that 
went into effect on July 1, 2013 and directs the Secretary to 
conduct a study of the operational, safety, health and fatigue 
aspects of the restart before and after July 1, 2013.

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Government's regulatory role in motor vehicle 
and highway safety began in September of 1966 with the 
enactment of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
of 1966 and the Highway Safety Act of 1966. In October 1966, 
these activities, originally under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Commerce, were transferred to the Department of 
Transportation to be carried out through the National Traffic 
Safety Bureau within the Federal Highway Administration. In 
March 1970, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
[NHTSA] was established as a separate organizational entity in 
the Department of Transportation.
    NHTSA is responsible for motor vehicle safety, highway 
safety behavioral programs, motor vehicle information, and 
automobile fuel economy programs. NHTSA's current programs are 
authorized in five major laws: (1) the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 301 of title 49, United 
States Code [U.S.C.]; (2) the Highway Safety Act (chapter 4 of 
title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost 
Savings Act [MVICSA] (part C of subtitle VI of title 49, 
U.S.C.); the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability 
and Documentation [TREAD] Act; (5) the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 
Users [SAFETEA-LU]; and (6) Moving Ahead for Progress in the 
21st Century Act [MAP-21].
    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 
provides for the establishment and enforcement of safety 
standards for vehicles and related equipment and the conduct of 
supporting research.
    The Highway Safety Act of 1966 established NHTSA's 
responsibility for providing States with financial assistance 
to support coordinated national highway safety programs 
(section 402 of title 23, U.S.C.), as well its role in highway 
safety research, development, and demonstration programs 
(section 403 of title 23, U.S.C.). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 
1988 (Public Law 100-690) authorized NHTSA to make grants to 
States to implement and enforce drunk driving prevention 
programs.
    The MVICSA established NHTSA's responsibilities for 
developing low-speed collision bumper standards and odometer 
regulations, as well its consumer information activities. 
Subsequent amendments to this law established the agency's 
responsibility for administering mandatory automotive fuel 
economy standards, theft prevention standards for high theft 
lines of passenger motor vehicles, and automobile content 
labeling requirements.
    In 2000, the TREAD Act expanded NHTSA's responsibilities 
further, requiring the agency to promulgate regulations for the 
stability of light duty vehicles, tire safety and labeling 
standards, improving the safety of child restraints, and 
establishing a child restraint safety rating consumer 
information program.
    SAFETEA-LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, 
established support for NHTSA's high-visibility enforcement 
efforts, motorcycle safety grants, and child safety and child 
booster safety incentive grant programs. Finally, SAFETEA-LU 
adopted new motor vehicle safety and information provisions, 
including rulemaking directions to reduce vehicle rollover 
crashes and vehicle passenger ejections, and improve passenger 
safety in side impact crashes.
    The most recent surface reauthorization, MAP-21, 
consolidated NHTSA's grant programs into a new National 
Priority Safety Program and set target spending rates for 
grants to States for occupant protection, State traffic safety 
information systems, impaired driving countermeasures, 
distracted driving, motorcycle safety, State graduated driver 
licensing, and in-vehicle alcohol detection device research. 
The bill also mandates State performance-based highway safety 
plans, and creates a new teenage traffic safety program, and 
Council for Vehicle Electronics, Software, and Engineering 
Expertise.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Between 2005 and 2011, the Nation experienced a 26 percent 
decrease in overall traffic fatalities, with 2011 marking the 
lowest number of fatalities since 1949. With the recovery of 
the economy and the return of more discretionary travel, the 
number of fatalities rose to 33,561 in 2012, a 3.6 percent 
increase over 2011. As the volume of freight and passenger 
vehicles on our highways continues to grow, NHTSA and its State 
partners must remain diligent to prevent further increases in 
the number of fatalities. The Committee recommends $834,500,000 
for NHTSA to maintain current programs and continue its mission 
to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce vehicle-related 
crashes. This level includes both budget authority and 
limitations on the obligation of contract authority. This 
funding is $16,500,000 less than the President's request and 
$15,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    The following table summarizes Committee recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Highway trust
                                                                   General fund        fund            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation 2014..............................................    $134,000,000    $685,000,000    $819,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...........................................  ..............     851,000,000     851,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................     134,500,000     700,000,000     834,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Highway trust
                                                                   General fund        fund            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2014.................................    $134,000,000    $123,500,000    $257,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015...........................................  ..............     274,000,000     274,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................     134,500,000     138,500,000     273,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    These programs support traffic safety programs and related 
research, demonstrations, technical assistance, and national 
leadership for highway safety programs conducted by State and 
local governments, the private sector, universities, research 
units, and various safety associations and organizations. These 
highway safety programs emphasize alcohol and drug 
countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law 
enforcement, emergency medical and trauma care systems, traffic 
records and licensing, State and community traffic safety 
evaluations, protection of motorcycle riders, pedestrian and 
bicyclist safety, pupil transportation, distracted driving 
prevention, young and older driver safety, and improved 
accident investigation procedures.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides $273,000,000 for Operations and 
Research, which includes funding for the National Driver 
Register. This level of funding is $1,000,000 less than the 
President's budget request and $15,500,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level. Of the total amount recommended for 
Operations and Research, $134,500,000 is derived from the 
General Fund and $138,500,000 is derived from the Highway Trust 
Fund, of which $5,000,000 is for the National Driver Register.
    Additional resources are provided to improve the Office of 
Defects Investigation's [ODI's] ability to identify vehicle 
safety defects, expand vehicle crash worthiness testing, 
conclude equipment compliance testing, conduct research and 
testing for motorcoach safety regulatory activities, and 
continue testing of emerging alternative fuel systems.
    Office of Defects Investigation [ODI].--The Safety Defects 
Investigation program investigates possible defect trends, and 
where appropriate, seeks recalls of vehicles and vehicle 
equipment that pose an unreasonable safety risk. To perform 
this mission, NHTSA maintains the collection of early warning 
reporting data submitted by manufacturers to the Advanced 
Retrieval Tire, Equipment, Motor Vehicle Information System 
[ARTEMIS], as well as complaints from vehicle owners, recalls, 
and crash investigations. The agency then analyzes the early 
warning data to determine whether anomalies or trends exist 
that potentially indicate the presence of a safety-related 
problem.
    As a result of the General Motors recall of 2.5 million 
vehicles for faulty ignition switches that have been linked to 
at least 13 deaths, concerns have been raised about NHTSA's 
ability to identify vehicle safety-related problems. NHTSA 
contends that General Motors withheld critical information that 
would have helped identify the defect and likely changed the 
agency's approach to the issue. ODI's ability to find these 
safety defects is heavily dependent upon automakers acting in 
good faith to share defect information in a timely basis. 
Equally important is the ability for the agency to aggressively 
screen defect trends within the voluminous amounts of early 
warning data it receives. The Committee recommendation includes 
$10,200,000 to support the implementation and maintenance of 
the Electronic Document and Records Management System [EDRMS] 
Corporate Information Factory [CIF]. The CIF is an advanced 
data mining and analytical tool that will allow ODI to provide 
more transparency to its data and enable faster, more reliable 
results for defect screeners and investigators.
    New Car Assessment Program [NCAP].--The New Car Assessment 
Program [NCAP] is an important component of NHTSA's continuing 
effort to reduce fatalities and injuries. NHTSA tests vehicle 
crash worthiness by evaluating passenger car crash performance 
data on frontal impact, side impact and rollover resistance 
tests to inform consumers about the relative safety of cars on 
the market using a five star safety rating system. 
Manufacturers respond to these tests by making more safety 
improvements to their vehicles for customers and earn top 
safety ratings. The Committee recommendation includes 
$14,000,000 for the NCAP program, consistent with the budget 
request. This level of funding will enable NHTSA to test 85 
percent of the new model year fleet.
    Vehicle Safety Compliance.--Vehicles and vehicle equipment 
sold in the United States are required to meet Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards [FMVSS]. The Office of Vehicle Safety 
Compliance conducts testing, inspection, analysis and 
investigations to identify defective equipment and ensure that 
the manufacturer issues a recall or provides a remedy for 
noncompliance. The Committee recommendation includes $9,140,000 
for FMVSS support consistent with the budget request. This 
level of funding will enable NHTSA to complete equipment 
compliance testing for child seats, initiate compliance testing 
for motor coach occupant protection related to MAP-21 motor 
coach safety mandates, and continue testing of emerging 
alternative fuel systems.
    Motorcoach Safety.--The Secretary is required to issue a 
number of occupant protection regulations to improve motorcoach 
roof strength and structural integrity, prevent ejections 
through windows, require technology that will reduce the chance 
of a rollover, and equip motor coaches with direct tire 
pressure monitoring systems. These issues are included in the 
Secretary's Motorcoach Safety Action Plan and MAP-21 requires 
final rules to be issued in each of these areas by October 1, 
2014. To date, the DOT has not issued proposed rules on any of 
these important safety initiatives. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations within 30 days of the date of enactment of this 
act on the status of the regulations mandated under section 
32703(b) and (c) of MAP-21.
    Fire Safety.--Fire safety is a recurrent problem on 
passenger-carrying vehicles of all kinds with 160 fires, on 
average, reported each year. Section 32704 of MAP-21 requires 
the Secretary to conduct research and testing on methods to 
prevent and mitigate fires on motorcoaches and, based on that 
research, determine what regulations are needed. The Committee 
directs the Secretary to report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of the date of 
enactment of this act on the progress of this research.
    Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard [CAFE].--NHTSA is 
responsible for setting fuel economy standards for cars and 
trucks sold in the United States to reduce energy consumption. 
In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] is 
responsible for calculating the average fuel economy for each 
manufacturer. The President has directed both agencies to align 
their research, performance requirements, and regulatory 
framework to develop a coordinated national program that 
achieves the requirements of the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 [EISA] and the Clean Air Act.
    The Committee recommends $7,900,000 for fiscal year 2015 
for the CAFE program, as requested. Funding will be used to 
support rulemakings for medium- and heavy-duty commercial 
vehicles; propose fuel economy standards for heavy-duty truck 
trailers; continue a retrospective analysis of past fuel 
efficiency rulemakings to assess the accuracy of projects as 
directed by GAO; and conduct research on fuel efficiency 
improving technologies that will support the development of 
fuel economy standards for model years 2022-2025.
    The Committee recognizes the importance that plastics and 
polymer-based composite materials play in reducing vehicle 
weight. They provide vehicle manufacturers with innovative 
tools to reduce fuel consumption and, by association, vehicle 
emissions, including air toxics and greenhouse gasses. As 
manufacturers plan for future fleets, composite materials offer 
benefits for meeting new targets established under NHTSA's 
recent vehicle fuel efficiency rules. At the same time, the 
Committee recognizes that composite manufacturing is a new and 
growing industry, providing highly skilled jobs in the 
automotive industry. The Committee directs NHTSA to continue 
advancing the state of the art of predictive engineering for 
plastics and composites, while validating the safety 
performance of plastics and polymer-based composites for the 
automotive industry in fiscal year 2015. The program will help 
facilitate a foundation of cooperation between DOT, the 
Department of Energy, and industry stakeholders for the 
development of safety-centered approaches for future light-
weight automotive design.
    Emergency Communication Centers.--The Committee believes 
that improved pre-hospital emergency response is vital to 
reducing mortality on America's highways and interstates, 
particularly in rural States where deaths per capita are 
highest. Providing high-quality emergency response, including 
the deployment of technology platforms that improve 
communications and speed transmission of data, photo images and 
real-time video to a remote trauma center may improve outcomes 
and save lives. As such, the Committee directs NHTSA to consult 
with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of 
Health and Human Services to provide a report within 180 days 
of enactment to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations that identifies models of regional and statewide 
medical communications centers, the mechanisms by which these 
models could be integrated into existing emergency medical 
services and trauma systems, and the potential ability of 
medical communications centers to use evolving and innovative 
digital technology to reduce traffic fatalities.
    Child Hyperthermia Prevention.--The Committee commends 
NHTSA for increasing public awareness of the risks of death and 
serious injury to children from hyperthermia when left 
unattended in vehicles. The Committee supports the agency's 
plan to continue a broad, coordinated national campaign along 
the lines of the successful efforts more than a decade ago that 
convinced more parents and caregivers to place children 12 
years of age and younger in safer rear seats. A similar effort 
to prevent hyperthermia deaths is justified as there have been 
more than 600 of these deaths in vehicles since 1998, an 
average of 38 per year and rising. The Committee also 
encourages the agency to work with State highway offices to use 
their resources to heighten awareness.
    National Roadside Survey.--NHTSA recently sponsored the 
fifth National Roadside Survey [NRS] conducted since the 
original survey in 1973. This national field survey of 
nighttime weekend drivers seeks to estimate the prevalence of 
alcohol and drugs in drivers on our Nation's roadways. The 
survey involves stopping drivers at approximately 300 randomly 
selected locations across the continental United States. While 
participation in the survey is random, voluntary, and 
compensated, civil libertarians have raised concerns about the 
presence of uniformed officers at the survey sites as the 
driving public may confuse survey sites with mandatory law 
enforcement checkpoints. In addition, passive and active 
collection of blood and saliva as part of the testing process 
has raised privacy concerns. The Committee directs NHTSA to 
provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations within 90 days of enactment that details the 
survey methodology of the most recent NRS including what 
characteristics distinguish NRS sites from mandatory law 
enforcement checkpoints and what steps are taken to make clear 
that either pulling over or participating in the survey are 
both completely voluntary. The report should also describe what 
steps are taken to protect the privacy of both participants and 
drivers that come upon NRS sites. The report should further 
contain metrics describing the percentage of drivers that are 
pulled over that elect to continue with the survey. The report 
should describe the number of States in which the survey was 
conducted, and the process by which it notified members of 
Congress prior to the survey that a survey would be conducted 
in their State. Finally, the report should describe any 
incidents where participation in the survey led to arrest of 
the occupant(s) of the automobile. The Committee also directs 
the Government Accountability Office to review and report on 
the overall value of the NRS to researchers and other public 
safety stakeholders, the differences between an NRS site and 
typical law enforcement checkpoints, and the effectiveness of 
the NRS survey methodology at protecting the privacy of the 
driving public.

                     HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Liquidation of
                                            contract      Limitation on
                                         authorization     obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014..................     $561,500,000     $561,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................      577,000,000      577,000,000
Committee recommendation..............      561,500,000      561,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The most recent surface authorization, MAP-21, reauthorized 
occupant protection grants, State traffic safety information 
grants, impaired driving countermeasures grants, motorcycle 
safety grants, and consolidated them under a new National 
Priority Safety Program (23 U.S.C. 405). The bill also created 
three new grant programs within the National Priority Safety 
Program: State graduated driver license grants, distracted 
driving grants, and in-vehicle alcohol detection devise 
research.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and 
authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract 
authorization of $561,500,000 for the highway traffic safety 
grant programs funded under this heading. The recommended 
limitation is $15,500,000 less than the budget estimate and 
equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The Committee has 
also provided the authority to liquidate an equal amount of 
contract authorization.
    The Committee continues to recommend prohibiting the use of 
section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or 
remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for 
State, local, or private buildings or structures.
    The authorized funding for administrative expenses and for 
each grant program is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Safety Programs (section 402)...................    $235,000,000
National Priority Safety Programs (section 405).........     272,000,000
High Visibility Enforcement Program.....................      29,000,000
Administrative Expenses.................................      25,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Drunk Driving Prevention.--Since 2008, NHTSA has partnered 
with leading automobile manufacturers in the Automotive 
Coalition for Traffic Safety [ACTS] on an ambitious research 
program to develop in-vehicle technology to prevent alcohol-
impaired driving that is publicly acceptable, unobtrusive for 
drivers below the legal limit of .08 BAC, reliable, and 
relatively inexpensive. The goal is to make such technologies 
available for voluntary installation in production vehicles 
within the next 5 years. ACTS is now operating under a second 
5-year cooperative agreement. To date, progress has been 
significant, including the identification of two competing 
technological approaches. During fiscal year 2015, these 
technologies will be installed in research vehicles for pilot 
field testing. The Committee continues to strongly support this 
promising research partnership, which has the potential to 
prevent thousands of drunk driving deaths annually. The 
Committee recommends $5,574,000 for ACTS to continue this 
research, which is consistent with the budget request and 
$134,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The 
Committee expects work will be accelerated during the coming 
fiscal year on consumer acceptance and public policy issues 
that are essential elements of the project and must be 
addressed in concert with technology development and testing.

      ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 
                             ADMINISTRATION

    Section 140 makes available $130,000 of obligation 
authority for section 402 of title 23 U.S.C. to pay for travel 
and expenses for State management reviews and highway safety 
staff core competency development training.
    Section 141 exempts obligation authority, made available in 
previous Public Laws from limitations on obligations for the 
current year.
    Section 142 prohibits the use of funds to implement section 
404 of title 23, United States Code.

                    Federal Railroad Administration

    The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an 
operating Administration within the Department of 
Transportation on April 1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of 
Railroad Safety from the Interstate Commerce Commission, the 
Office of High Speed Ground Transportation from the Department 
of Commerce, and the Alaska Railroad from the Department of the 
Interior. FRA is responsible for planning, developing, and 
administering programs to achieve safe operating and mechanical 
practices in the railroad industry. Grants to the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial 
assistance programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad 
industry's physical infrastructure are also administered by the 
Federal Railroad Administration.

                         SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $184,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     185,250,000
Committee recommendation................................     191,250,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA 
rail safety activities and all other administrative and 
operating activities related to staff and programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $191,250,000 for Safety and 
Operations for fiscal year 2015, which is $6,000,000 more than 
the budget request and $6,750,000 more than the fiscal year 
2014 enacted level. The bill specifies that $15,400,000 shall 
remain available until expended to cover the cost of the 
Automated Track Inspection Program, the Railroad Safety 
Information System, the Southeastern Transportation Study, 
research and development activities, contract support, and 
Alaska Railroad liabilities.
    The Committee recommendation includes $3,750,000 to 
annualize the safety and inspector staffing increases provided 
in fiscal year 2014, and for 10 additional safety inspectors in 
fiscal year 2015.
    Automated Track Inspection Program.--The Automated Track 
Inspection Program [ATIP] provides track geometry information, 
as well as other track-related performance data, to assess 
compliance with Federal Track Safety Standards. The data 
collected under ATIP is used by FRA's railroad inspectors and 
by railroads to ensure proper track maintenance and to assess 
track safety trends within the industry. FRA is currently 
operating only one ATIP car for inspections. The Committee 
recommendation includes an increase of $3,000,000 to fund the 
use of a second car to support the inspection of crude oil 
routes--covering more than 14,000 miles nationwide. Funding 
will also be used to expedite implementation of a remote 
automated track inspection capability using unmanned systems to 
increase inspection mileage while reducing costs.
    Training and Outreach.--Class I railroads recently 
committed to spending $5,000,000 to develop a specialized crude 
by rail training program for local emergency responders at the 
Transportation Technology Center [TTC] in Pueblo, Colorado. 
This initiative will train an estimated 1,500 first responders. 
While a helpful and well-intentioned program, many communities 
and tribes lack the resources to meet the match requirements 
and pay the overtime for staff engaged in training, as well as 
the costs of the supplemental staff to cover their regular 
duties in their absence. The Committee recommendation for the 
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [PHMSA] 
includes $1,000,000 for hazardous materials emergency response 
training to be made available in a Web-based or electronic 
format. The Committee directs FRA to collaborate with PHMSA on 
the development of this training curriculum and to incorporate 
the training regime from TTC. This will ensure that communities 
and tribes on or near rail lines transporting energy products 
have access to this valuable emergency response training.

                   RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $35,250,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      35,100,000
Committee recommendation................................      40,730,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,730,000 
for railroad research and development, which is $5,630,000 more 
than the budget request and $5,480,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level.
    Short Line Railroad Safety Institute.--Short Line railroads 
operate more than 50,000 miles of track, which is one-third of 
the national railroad network. They are an important feeder 
system for the larger Class I railroads, helping connect local 
communities to the national railroad network. There are 550 
short line railroads operating in the United States, 73 of 
which currently handle some volume of crude oil. The safety 
management system of short lines is extremely varied and many 
companies lack the resources to conduct hazardous materials 
safety training and other operational safety assessments. The 
Committee supports FRA's efforts to create a Short Line 
Railroad Safety Institute in partnership with short line and 
regional railroads to build a stronger, sustainable safety 
culture in this segment of the rail industry. The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for this initiative, which 
will be used to perform safety compliance assessments and 
training on short lines that transport crude oil. The Committee 
believes this will be an important part of the larger safety 
strategy to improve the safe transportation of crude oil and 
other hazardous materials by rail.
    Accident Analysis and Mitigation.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,000,000 for FRA to conduct accident 
risk analysis and mitigation research to examine how the safety 
risks of transporting energy products changes from source to 
destination. FRA will assess the likelihood and consequences of 
accidents during pre-treatment, classification, loading, 
transit, and unloading. The agency will also evaluate 
mitigation strategies to reduce identified risks throughout the 
supply chain, such as regulation and enforcement, more accurate 
classification methods, alternative routing, reduced line 
speeds, improved braking, improved tank car crashworthiness, 
and better informed emergency responders. The research will 
provide a clear understanding of the most cost-effective ways 
of improving overall energy transportation safety.
    Research and Development Activities.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,480,000 for research and development 
activities related to the safe transportation of energy 
products. Specifically, FRA will supplement PHMSA's research on 
the development of a Liquefied Natural Gas [LNG] bulk tank car 
and locomotive tender designs by conducting full-scale impact 
tests to assess performance, puncture resistance, and validate 
computer simulations. FRA will also evaluate technologies 
suitable for retrofitting tank cars to improve safety, conduct 
an analysis of the costs and benefits of retrofits compared to 
new tank cars, develop recommended practices for tank car 
retrofitting, and, if warranted, identify inspection and 
maintenances procedures for tank car retrofit options.

       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 2015. The 
Committee directs FRA to continue to provide a summary of loan 
activity for the preceding fiscal years in its fiscal year 2016 
budget justification. At a minimum, FRA should detail the 
number of loans pending and issued, and the processing time for 
these loans.

          THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

         GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2014....................................  $1,390,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................   1,390,000,000

\1\The President's budget would establish two new trust fund accounts 
for Current Passenger Rail Service and the Rail Service Improvement 
Program totaling $4,775,000,000, of which $2,450,000,000 would be 
available to Amtrak under the new Current Passenger Rail Service Account 
for both capital and operating expenses.

    The Committee recommends $1,390,000,000 for the FRA to make 
grants to Amtrak. This amount is equal to the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level. The administration's budget request would shift 
funding for Amtrak into a new $2,450,000,000 Current Passenger 
Rail Service program that would be supported by a new dedicated 
Rail Account of the Transportation Trust Fund.
    Of the total amount recommended by the Committee, up to 
$350,000,000 may be used for operating grants, up to 
$149,000,000 may be used for debt service payments, and not 
less than $50,000,000 shall be used to bring stations into 
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Of the 
amounts available for capital, not less than $40,000,000 shall 
be used for the Gateway Program. Furthermore, up to one-half of 
1 percent of the total funding level is available for FRA to 
conduct oversight of Amtrak's operating and capital 
expenditures, and up to one-half of 1 percent of the total 
funding level is available for the Northeast Corridor 
Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission.
    For operating grants, the Committee directs FRA to make a 
timely disbursement of funds no more frequently than once per 
quarter to maximize the Corporation's ability to efficiently 
manage its cash flow. For capital grants, the Committee 
recommends the continuation of an initial allocation of 
$200,000,000 for a working capital fund, with the remaining 
amounts to be made available on a reimbursable basis.
    The Committee maintains requirements for Amtrak to submit a 
business plan and 5-year Financial Plan for fiscal year 2015. 
The Corporation shall continue to submit a budget request for 
fiscal year 2016 to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations in similar format and substance to those 
submitted by executive agencies of the Federal Government.
    ADA Compliance.--The Committee continues to believe that 
compliance with the requirements of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act [ADA] is essential to ensuring that all people 
have equal access to transportation services. In February 2009, 
Amtrak presented its plan for achieving compliance with the ADA 
over a 5-year period. Since then, the corporation has found it 
challenging to define the scope of projects to comply with ADA 
and complete work agreements with its partners at each station. 
In September 2011, DOT issued a final rule amending its ADA 
regulations for level boarding at passenger rail stations. The 
rule requires Amtrak to provide level entry boarding at 
stations where the tracks are not shared with freight rail, but 
allows Amtrak to provide alternative boarding mechanisms at 
tracks shared with freight rail. Amtrak had to re-evaluate and 
revise all plans, design specifications, engineering 
requirements, and construction estimates and submit a new ADA 
compliance plan.
    Amtrak reports that the Corporation has some degree of ADA 
responsibility at 390 stations. Amtrak has provided mobile 
lifts at the 110 stations that have less than 7,500 riders 
annually. The remaining 280 stations that have more than 7,500 
passengers annually will need some type of set-back level 
boarding solution. Many of the platforms in these stations are 
owned by freight railroads and reconciling the requirements of 
existing freight traffic with the needs of passengers is a 
complex challenge. The Committee encourages Amtrak to use its 
funds to address compliance requirements that are the 
responsibility of other parties at the stations it serves where 
the work involved is not more than 10 percent of the cost of 
all ADA compliance work at that station, and where doing so 
would expedite completion of its compliance efforts and be a 
more efficient use of resources than compelling those parties 
to act.
    With the level of funding recommended by the Committee, 
Amtrak intends to advance construction at 15 stations and to 
finalize planning and design requirements for another 95 
stations. By the end of the fiscal year 2015, Amtrak expects to 
complete work in a total of 52 stations.
    State Supported Routes.--The Committee notes that States 
with intercity passenger rail service under 750 miles in length 
have taken over the full cost of the service as required by 
section 209 of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment 
Act of 2008 [PRIIA]. That service has reached record ridership 
levels and generates nearly half of all Amtrak ridership, and 
30 percent of its revenue. The Committee directs Amtrak to 
provide the required transparent, accurate cost information to 
States, as well as the 5-year capital equipment investment 
program agreed to in the PRIIA section 209 Cost Methodology 
Policy. The cost information should be detailed and verifiable. 
States must have confidence the costs they are being asked to 
pay are commensurate with the State-supported routes for which 
they are responsible.
    Amtrak's Rolling Stock Acquisitions.--Acela service 
provides nationally important mobility services in the Nation's 
most densely traveled intercity corridor and accounts for over 
70 percent of the net operating surplus of Amtrak's Northeast 
Corridor operations. The equipment presently used to provide 
Acela service is capacity constrained and past its mid-life use 
for equipment in premium service. The Committee is aware of 
Amtrak's interest in securing new high-speed trainsets that 
will initially supplement and eventually replace the equipment 
presently used to provide Acela service. The timely acquisition 
of this equipment is a critical element of improving Amtrak's 
financial performance and an important element of the future of 
intercity passenger rail service. The Committee encourages 
Amtrak to apply for a RRIF loan to finance this acquisition, as 
it will offer more favorable financing terms and permit the 
cost to be spread over the life of the equipment. The Committee 
notes that the RRIF program has been underutilized up to now, 
with the Department having the ability to make approximately 
$34,000,000,000 in loans without further action by Congress. 
Thus this particular loan would not limit in any significant 
way the Secretary's ability to make other meritorious loans.
    Food and Beverage Service.--Last year, Amtrak announced its 
intent to eliminate food and beverage losses over 5 years. The 
Committee is encouraged by this announcement and commends 
Amtrak for addressing this aspect of its business. The 
Committee notes that food and beverage service is important to 
Amtrak passengers, especially those who use long distance 
trains regularly. Not only do Amtrak's customers require the 
service, but eliminating food and beverages from Amtrak's 
operations would actually increase its operating losses due to 
reduced ridership and ticket revenue.
    While last year's announcement is encouraging, Amtrak has 
yet to provide a specific plan to make its food and beverage 
service profitable. Therefore, the Committee directs Amtrak to 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and 
the FRA within 180 days of enactment of this act a detailed 
explanation of the reforms Amtrak has already implemented to 
reduce food and beverage losses since the corporation first 
announced this initiative on October 3, 2013, and a 
comprehensive plan outlining how it will meet its goal by 
October 2018.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    Section 150 permanently prohibits funds for the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation from being available if the 
Corporation contracts for services, at or from any location 
outside of the United States, which were, as of July 1, 2006, 
performed by a full-time or part-time Amtrak employee within 
the United States.
    Section 151 allows the Secretary to receive and use cash or 
spare parts to repair and replace damaged track inspection 
cars.
    Section 152 continues the conditions under which the 
Secretary may approve operating grants to Amtrak.
    Section 153 limits overtime payments to employees at Amtrak 
to $35,000 per employee. However, Amtrak's president may waive 
this restriction for specific employees for safety or 
operational efficiency reasons. If the cap is waived, Amtrak 
must notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
within 30 days and specify the reason for such waiver.

                     Federal Transit Administration

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Transit Administration was established as a 
component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization 
Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred 
most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit 
Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 
missions of the Federal Transit Administration [FTA] are: to 
help develop improved mass transportation systems and 
practices; to support the inclusion of public transportation in 
community and regional planning to support economic 
development; to provide mobility for Americans who depend on 
transit for transportation in both metropolitan and rural 
areas; to maximize the productivity and efficiency of 
transportation systems; and to provide assistance to State and 
local governments and agencies in financing such services and 
systems.
    A growing number of Americans depend on public transit to 
get to work, school, medical appointments, and elsewhere. In 
2013, they took 10.7 billion trips on public transportation, 
the highest annual ridership level since 1956. While the 
recession led to a decline in transit use in 2009 and 2010, 
ridership has since recovered with an improving economy. Growth 
is also driven by investments that communities and the Federal 
Government have made to expand transit options. This is 
especially true of rail transit, where ridership grew by more 
than a third in the last decade as new rail lines opened in 
almost two dozen cities, including Sacramento, Phoenix, Dallas 
and Salt Lake City.
    The most recent authorization for transit programs was 
contained in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 
[MAP-21], which will expire on September 30, 2014. MAP-21 
expanded FTA's responsibilities for ensuring the safety of 
public transit; providing financial support to transit systems 
during emergencies, including natural disasters such as floods 
and hurricanes; and supporting core capacity improvements in 
existing fixed guideway systems. The Committee's 
recommendations assume they will be further extended under 
their current structure until the enactment of a full 
reauthorization package.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level 
of $11,055,000,000 is provided for FTA programs in fiscal year 
2015. The recommendation is $6,594,400,000 less than the budget 
request and $309,357,000 above the fiscal year 2014 enacted 
level.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $105,933,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     114,400,000
Committee recommendation................................     110,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Administrative expenses fund personnel, contract resources, 
information technology, space management, travel, training, and 
other administrative expenses necessary to carry out FTA's 
mission to support, improve, and help ensure the safety of 
public transportation systems.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $110,500,000 from the 
General Fund for the agency's salaries and administrative 
expenses. The recommended level of funding is $3,900,000 less 
than the budget request and $4,567,000 above the fiscal year 
2014 enacted level. This funding level will support new 
responsibilities for safety oversight assigned to FTA in the 
most recent authorization act, MAP-21, as well as cover the 
costs of salaries and inflation.
    The Committee has recognized for several years now that 
FTA's staffing has not kept up with its increasing 
responsibilities. Successive evaluations have concluded that 
FTA requires additional staff to support a steadily growing 
workload and improve its ability to perform project oversight, 
contract administration, and technical assistance. The 
Committee acknowledges MAP-21 added significant new burdens, 
including standing up a new safety office. The recommendation 
supports full staffing for the Office of Transit Safety and 
Oversight, but due to funding constraints, does not include 
additional resources to address staff shortfalls in other core 
operations.
    The Committee again notes the lack of information about the 
additional resources requested in the Administrative Expenses 
section of the congressional justification. Although FTA 
provides this information upon request, the cost, location, 
composition and other details that support the budget should be 
included in the justification. The Committee directs FTA to 
provide this information in its justification for any staff 
increases it requests in future years. In addition, the 
Committee directs FTA to provide information on the staffing 
and funding requirements of each individual FTA office in its 
fiscal year 2016 submission.
    Transit Safety.--While public transit remains a remarkably 
safe mode of transportation, accidents do still happen, such as 
the derailment of a New York subway train in Queens last month, 
injuring 19. Six weeks earlier, a Chicago Blue Line train 
crashed at O'Hare Airport, injuring the operator and 32 
passengers. To reduce the risk of such incidents, MAP-21 tasked 
FTA with significant new responsibilities for ensuring the 
safety of public transit, including establishing common-sense 
standards for transit agencies and the State Safety Oversight 
programs that oversee them, as well as transit vehicles. These 
changes represent a new mission for the agency, one that 
requires FTA to stand up and staff an entirely new office while 
simultaneously producing the full range of regulations needed 
to comprehensively address transit safety under the auspices of 
the National Safety Program authorized in 49 U.S.C. 5329.
    FTA has proceeded expeditiously since MAP-21's passage in 
mid-2012. It recently published interim safety certification 
training provisions, as well as a comprehensive advance notice 
of public rulemaking [ANPRM] covering the required National 
Safety Plan, Agency Safety Plan, and Safety Certification 
Training Plan. The ANPRM also included Transit Asset 
Management, a particular focus of the Committee since it 
directed FTA to assess the condition of the Nation's rail 
transit systems in 2008, and then in 2010, to assume a 
leadership role in improving asset management in transit 
agencies. NTSB has identified a probable relationship in some 
transit accidents to equipment in poor or marginal condition, 
demonstrating a link between the condition of equipment and 
safety risks, not to mention reliability, maintenance costs, 
and the quality of transit service.
    In the coming year, FTA will continue to work closely with 
State Safety Oversight organizations to support their efforts 
to achieve compliance and certification. It expects to publish 
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the safety plans and 
asset management, as well as its proposed adoption of the 
Safety Management System [SMS] approach to developing the 
National Safety Program. SMS takes a proactive approach to 
managing safety that has been adopted by other agencies with 
transportation safety missions, including the Federal Aviation 
Administration and International Civil Aviation Organization. 
To support these efforts, the Committee recommendation includes 
funding for 21 additional FTE for the Safety Office, making it 
possible to achieve the total planned complement of 49 staff.
    Infrastructure Planning.--Severe weather and other natural 
disasters can have serious impacts on transportation systems 
and the communities that rely on them, disrupting highways and 
public transportation systems, and slowing local economies to a 
crawl. Rebuilding and resuming normal operations in the wake of 
these events can be difficult and costly. To address this 
issue, at the local level, many communities are beginning to 
incorporate the impact of these events into the planning, 
design, and construction of transportation services. Washington 
State, for example, has used the results of a statewide 
infrastructure vulnerability assessment in its corridor plans 
and project-level environmental studies.
    The Committee recognizes that taking into account severe 
weather and other natural disasters in infrastructure planning 
and building is a cost-effective and important step in ensuring 
the longevity of our transportation system. It helps to protect 
the critical corridors that businesses, workers, and families 
rely on every day. But as standards continue to develop, some 
States lack the technical expertise to incorporate 
vulnerability assessments into their planning efforts. 
Therefore, the Committee urges FTA to define, and make 
available to States, best practices for resiliency planning. 
The Committee further urges FTA to provide technical assistance 
to States and planning organizations to help them incorporate 
such considerations into the planning process. The Committee 
provides this direction also to FHWA, and encourages both modal 
administrations to coordinate their efforts with FRA.
    Project Management Oversight [PMO] Activities.--The 
Committee directs FTA to continue to submit to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations the quarterly PMO reports 
for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
    Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].--MAP-21 requires 
that FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on 
Banking, 30 days before executing a full funding grant 
agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, the Committee directs FTA to 
submit the following information: (1) a copy of the proposed 
full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual Federal 
appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly and 
total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated 
for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2019; (4) a 
detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and 
anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization, by 
individual project; (5) an evaluation of whether the 
alternatives analysis made by the applicant fully assessed all 
the viable alternatives; (6) a financial analysis of the 
project's cost and sponsor's ability to finance the project, 
which shall be conducted by an independent examiner and which 
shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and 
finance plan; (7) the source and security of all public and 
private sector financing; (8) the project's operating plan, 
which enumerates the project's future revenue and ridership 
forecasts; and (9) a listing of all planned contingencies and 
possible risks associated with the project.
    The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing 30 days before 
approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any full 
funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to all changes 
shall include any budget revisions or program changes that 
materially alter the project as originally stipulated in the 
FFGA, including any proposed change in rail car procurement.
    The Committee directs FTA to continue to provide a monthly 
new starts project update to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, detailing the status of each project. This 
update should include FTA's plans and specific milestone 
schedules for advancing projects, especially those within 2 
years of a proposed full funding grant agreement. It should 
also highlight and explain any potential cost and schedule 
changes affecting projects. In addition, FTA should notify the 
Committees 10 days before any project in the new starts process 
is given approval by FTA to advance to preliminary engineering 
or final design.

                             FORMULA GRANTS

                  (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Obligation
                                                           limitation
                                                          (trust fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014..................................    $8,595,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................    13,800,000,000
Committee recommendation..............................     8,595,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Communities use Formula Grants funds for bus and railcar 
purchases, facility repair and construction, maintenance, and 
where eligible, planning and operating expenses. The Formula 
Grants account includes funding for the following programs: 
transit-oriented development; planning programs; urbanized area 
formula grants; enhanced mobility for seniors and individuals 
with disabilities; formula grants for rural areas; a bus 
testing facility; a national transit institute; the national 
transit database; state of good repairs grants; bus and bus 
facilities formulas grants; and growing States and high-density 
States formula grants. Set-asides from formula funds are 
directed to a grant program for each State with rail systems 
not regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration to meet 
the requirements for a State Safety Oversight program. The 
account also provides funding to support passenger ferry 
services and public transportation on Indian reservations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends limiting obligations in the 
transit formula and bus grants account in fiscal year 2015 to 
$8,595,000,000. The recommendation is the same as the 
authorized level for fiscal year 2014 and a placeholder for a 
level that will ultimately be authorized in the successor to 
MAP-21.
    The Committee recommends $9,500,000,000 in authority to 
liquidate contract authorizations. This amount is sufficient to 
cover outstanding obligations from this account.
    The following table displays the distribution of obligation 
limitation among the program categories of formula grants:

                 DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FORMULA GRANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Fiscal year 2015
   Formula grants  (obligation                                             -------------------------------------
           limitation)                Section  number    Fiscal year  2014    Administration       Committee
                                                                                 proposal          assumption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit Oriented Development.....  20005(b)............        $10,000,000        $10,234,449        $10,000,000
Planning Programs................  5305................        128,800,000        131,819,706        128,800,000
Urbanized Area Formula Grants....  5307................      4,458,650,000      4,563,182,692      4,458,650,000
Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and   5310................        258,300,000        264,355,823        258,300,000
 Individuals with Disabilities.
Formula Grants for Rural Areas...  5311................        607,800,000        622,049,823        607,800,000
Bus Testing Facility.............  5318................          3,000,000          3,070,335          3,000,000
National Transit Institute.......  5322(d).............          5,000,000          5,117,225          5,000,000
National Transit Database........  5335................          3,850,000          3,940,263          3,850,000
State of Good Repair Grants......  5337................      2,165,900,000      5,719,000,000      2,165,900,000
Bus and Bus Facilities Formula     5339................        427,800,000      1,939,000,000        427,800,000
 Grants.
Growing States and High Density    5340................        525,900,000        538,229,684        525,900,000
 States Formula Grants.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total......................  ....................      8,595,000,000     13,800,000,000      8,595,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            TRANSIT RESEARCH

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          General fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014..................................       $43,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        33,000,000
Committee recommendation..............................        33,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation supports activities that are designed to 
develop solutions that improve public transportation. As the 
Federal agency responsible for transit, FTA assumes a 
leadership role in supporting research intended to identify 
innovative technologies and successful strategies to increase 
ridership, improve personal mobility and access, increase 
efficiency and safety, and demonstrate new technologies that 
promote clean energy and improve air quality.
    FTA may make grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and 
other agreements for research, development, demonstration, and 
deployment projects, and evaluation of technology of national 
significance to public transportation. FTA provides transit 
agencies with research results to help them be better equipped 
to improve services and meet local transportation needs at the 
lowest reasonable cost. FTA helps transit agencies employ new 
service methods and technologies that improve their operations 
and capital efficiencies, as well as improve transit safety and 
emergency preparedness.
    The current authorization, MAP-21, continues these 
activities, while increasing the importance of FTA's role in 
promoting the development and deployment of successful low or 
no emission buses, technology the agency played an important 
role in helping to develop and promote in recent years.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $33,000,000 for the transit 
research. The recommendation is $10,000,000 below the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level, and equal to the request. Of the 
total, $30,000,000 is for activities authorized under section 
5312 of MAP-21. The Committee recommendation allocates the 
balance of funds to the Transit Cooperative Research Program 
authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5313.
    FTA's research efforts have a long, distinguished record of 
success, having helped pioneer and test compressed natural gas 
[CNG] buses in the 1970s and hybrid diesel bus prototypes in 
the 1980s, leading to the widespread adoption of these 
technologies today. More recently, FTA helped lead efforts to 
develop the first practical fuel cell buses in the world.
    There is a compelling case that the need for Federal 
support to help develop, test, and promote new transit-focused 
technologies remains as great as ever. These efforts can 
potentially help transit agencies reduce costs, and assist 
communities in their efforts to ease congestion and improve air 
quality. They also support U.S. economic competitiveness. To 
support these goals, the Committee directed the Office of the 
Inspector General [OIG] to provide a report recommending 
additional steps the FTA could take to promote the deployment 
of cost-effective low- and zero-emission buses. The report will 
also identify promising technologies that could benefit the 
industry by significantly reducing costs, curbing emissions, or 
improving safety. The Committee looks forward to examining the 
OIG's report when it is issued this summer.
    Improving Rural Transit Access.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of ensuring safe, private transportation is made 
available for seniors, especially in small and rural 
communities where distance and low population density make 
traditional mass transportation difficult. The efficiencies of 
information management can bring together underutilized private 
transportation capacity by combining ride share, car share, 
volunteer transport, and private community transport. The 
Committee encourages FTA to consider the use of suites of 
software programs that leverage many kinds of unused private 
transportation capacity to promote transportation for seniors 
in small and rural communities.
    Safety and Emergency Response Grants-- Following the 
passage of MAP-21, in October 2013, FTA devoted $29,000,000 in 
research funding to a grant competition for innovative safety, 
resiliency, and all-hazards emergency response and recovery 
research demonstration projects of national significance. FTA 
received 72 proposals seeking $161,000,000 for projects to 
demonstrate such innovations as advanced communication systems, 
advanced train control and crash avoidance technologies, and 
rail track worker safety and information systems. The agency 
expects to announce its selections in July.

                   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2014....................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      27,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    MAP-21 authorizes FTA to provide technical assistance to 
the public transportation industry and to develop standards for 
transit services, with an emphasis on improving access for all 
individuals and transportation equity. It also authorizes FTA 
to support public transportation workforce development, 
training, and recruitment.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $5,500,000 for technical 
assistance and training. The recommendation is $500,000 above 
the fiscal year 2014 level, and $22,000,000 below the request. 
Of the total, $5,000,000 is for activities authorized under 
section 5314 of MAP-21. The Committee recommendation allocates 
the balance of funds, $500,000, to the Human Resources and 
Training activities authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5322. The 
Committee is sympathetic to the Department's proposal to fund a 
substantial workforce development program within FTA, but is 
not in the position to make such a commitment while 
discretionary spending remains constrained and the Capital 
Investment Grants program continues to grow.

                       CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2014....................................  $1,942,938,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................   2,500,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,161,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Under the Capital Investment Grants program, FTA provides 
grants to fund the building of new fixed guideway systems or 
extensions and improvements to existing fixed guideway systems. 
Eligible services include light rail, rapid rail (heavy rail), 
commuter rail, and bus rapid transit. The program has long 
included funding for two categories of eligible projects 
authorized under section 5309 of title 49 of the United States 
Code: New Starts and Small Starts. New Starts are projects with 
a Federal share of at least $75,000,000 and a total capital 
cost of $250,000,000 or more. By comparison, Small Starts are 
projects with a Federal match and total capital cost below 
these thresholds. The most recent reauthorization, MAP-21, 
added a third category of eligible projects: Core Capacity. The 
latter are defined as projects that will increase capacity in 
an existing fixed guideway corridor by at least 10 percent.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    For more than a decade, there has been renewed interest in 
many parts of the country in rail transit, especially in areas 
seeking to find solutions to road congestion, support economic 
development, manage population growth, and reduce air 
pollution. The Committee supports these investments, which it 
believes are essential to maintaining the Nation's economic 
competitiveness.
    The Committee recommends a level of $2,161,000,000 for 
capital investment grants. This level fully funds all of the 
projects included in Department's request that are currently 
under construction or expected to be so during fiscal year 
2015.

   RECOMMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2015 FUNDING FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Fiscal year 2015
                       Project                          recommendations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals by Project Type:
    Existing New Starts Full Funding Grant               $1,510,137,944
     Agreements.....................................
    Recommended New Starts Projects.................        413,221,561
    Recommended Core Capacity Funding...............        120,000,000
    Recommended Small Starts Projects...............        151,702,662
    Oversight Activities............................         30,937,833
    Less existing unallocated balances..............        (65,000,000)
                                                     -------------------
      Grand total...................................      2,161,000,000
                                                     ===================
Existing New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreements
 With Remaining Funding Needs:
    CA Los Angeles, Regional Connector Transit              100,000,000
     Corridor.......................................
    CA San Francisco--Third Street Light Rail-              150,000,000
     Central Subway Project.........................
    CA San Jose--Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension.        150,000,000
    CA Los Angeles, Westside Subway Extension--             100,000,000
     Section 1......................................
    CO Denver--RTD Eagle, Denver....................        150,000,000
    CT New BritainHartford Busway\1\................         61,938,873
    HI Honolulu--High Capacity Transit Corridor.....        250,000,000
    MN St. Paul-Min., Central Corridor Light Rail           109,147,017
     Transit Project\1\.............................
    NC Charlotte, Blue Line Extension-Northeast             100,000,000
     Corridor.......................................
    NY New York--East Side Access\1\................         47,222,960
    OR Portland-Milwaukie LRT.......................        100,000,000
    VA Northern Virginia-Dulles Wiehle Ave\1\.......        102,155,131
    WA Seattle-University Link LRT Extension\1\.....         89,673,963
                                                     -------------------
      Total Existing New Starts Full Funding Grant        1,510,137,944
       Agreements...................................
                                                     ===================
Recommended New Starts Projects:
    FL Orlando, SunRail Phase II South\2\...........         63,221,561
    MA Cambridge to Medford, Green Line Extension\2\        100,000,000
    MD Baltimore, Red Line\2\.......................        100,000,000
    MD Maryland National Capital Purple Line\2\.....        100,000,000
    TX Fort Worth, TEX Rail\2\......................         50,000,000
                                                     -------------------
      Total Recommended New Starts Projects.........        413,221,561
                                                     ===================
Core Capacity Projects:
     IL Chicago, Red and Purple Line Modernization          120,000,000
     Project........................................
                                                     ===================
Recommended Small Starts Projects:
      Total Small Starts............................       151,702,662
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Indicates completion of FTA commitment to the project.
\2\Indicates first time included as a funding recommendation in the
  President's budget.

             PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2014....................................................
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     $25,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program is a new 
program established in MAP-21 to help States and public transit 
systems cover the costs of protecting, repairing, and replacing 
equipment and facilities that may suffer or have suffered 
serious damage as a result of an emergency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Due to funding constraints, the Committee is unable to 
include funding for the emergency relief program in fiscal year 
2015.

      GRANTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $150,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     150,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     150,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides assistance to the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA]. The Federal Rail 
Safety Improvements Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432, title VI, 
section 601) authorized DOT to make up to $150,000,000 
available to WMATA annually for capital and preventive 
maintenance for a 10-year period.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for 
grants to WMATA for capital and preventive maintenance 
expenses, including pressing safety-related investments. These 
grants are in addition to the funding local jurisdictions have 
committed to providing to WMATA. The Committee remains 
committed to supporting the refurbishment and modernization of 
WMATA's infrastructure, and is encouraged by the initial 
investment to replace many of the older, 1000-series rail cars 
with domestically built 7000-series cars, with delivery 
starting in 2015. WMATA expects to retire the last of the 1000-
series cars by early 2017. The Committee also notes increased 
efforts to make the system safer, including: fixing the track 
signal system and communications equipment, installing guarded 
turnouts, buying equipment for wayside worker protection, and 
installing rollback protection on cars not already outfitted 
with this feature.
    Metro's Financial Management.--In March 2014, an FTA audit 
reported material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in 
WMATA's internal controls. The audit found that WMATA did not 
have adequate controls in place to ensure Federal expenditures 
were properly incurred and charged to grants, or accurately 
reported. It also concluded that WMATA did not have adequate 
controls in place to ensure that goods and services were 
procured in accordance with Federal regulations. In response to 
these serious findings, FTA suspended WMATA's ability to 
automatically draw down its Federal grants; until these 
weaknesses are corrected, FTA will review and approve each 
WMATA request for reimbursement.
    The Committee is deeply troubled by the auditors' findings, 
and expects WMATA to quickly eliminate the material weaknesses, 
significant deficiencies, and minor control deficiencies before 
it begins work on the fiscal year 2016 appropriations.
    The Committee directs WMATA to provide the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations a report each quarter detailing 
its progress in completing each of the auditors' 45 
recommendations. The bill requires the Secretary to approve 
grants provided under this heading to WMATA only after 
certifying that significant progress has been made.
    The bill also directs FTA to provide these grants to WMATA 
only after receiving and reviewing a request for each specific 
project to be funded under this heading. The bill requires FTA 
to determine that WMATA has placed the highest priority on 
funding projects that will improve the safety of its public 
transit system before approving these grants, using the 
National Transportation Safety Board's recommendations as a 
guide.

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

    Section 160 exempts authority previously made available for 
programs of the FTA under section 5338 of title 49, United 
States Code, from the obligation limitations in this act.
    Section 161 requires that funds appropriated or limited by 
this act for specific projects not obligated by September 30, 
2019, and other recoveries, be directed to projects eligible to 
use the funds for the purposes for which they were originally 
provided.
    Section 162 allows funds appropriated before October 1, 
2014 that remain available for expenditure to be transferred to 
the most recent appropriation heading.
    Section 163 provides an exemption from the charter bus 
regulations for portions of the State of Washington.
    Section 164 permits the Secretary to consider significant 
private contributions when calculating the non-Federal share of 
capital costs for New Starts projects.
    Section 165 requires the Secretary to consider Small Starts 
projects eligible when developing guidance implementing the 
Program of Interrelated Projects.
    Section 166 makes $20,000,000 in prior year bus and bus 
facilities funds available for bus rapid transit projects 
proposed in the Capital Investment Grants program.

             Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                       OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

                    (HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $31,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      31,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      31,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] was established by 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
662). Since 1987, the HMTF has supported the operations and 
maintenance of commercial harbor projects maintained by the 
Federal Government. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund and revenues from non-Federal sources finance the 
operation and maintenance of the Seaway, for which SLSDC is 
responsible.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $31,500,000 for the operations, 
maintenance, and asset renewal of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. 
This amount is equal to the budget request and $500,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The recommended level 
includes $14,300,000 to continue the agency's Asset Renewal 
Program [ARP].
    The Seaway is entering its 56th year of operation, which 
means that its infrastructure components are reaching the end 
of their design life. The ARP is a significant 10-year, multi-
project strategy to address the long-term asset renewal needs 
of the U.S. portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway, with 
attention to the two locks operated and maintained by the 
United States (Snell and Eisenhower), the U.S. segment of the 
Seaway International Bridge, maintenance dredging, operational 
systems, facilities, and equipment.
    SLSDC has made significant progress in executing the 
projects identified in the ARP under limited construction 
capacity since receiving initial appropriations in fiscal year 
2009. The Committee encourages SLSDC to move ahead with major 
ARP projects in fiscal year 2015, including the installation of 
a new hands-free vessel vacuum mooring system, continued 
upgrade of miter gate machinery at the Seaway locks, structural 
rehabilitation of the miter gates, and the start of a 4-year 
project to replace SLSDC's tugboats, Robinson Bay and 
Performance. The Committee directs SLSDC to continue to submit 
an annual report to the Senate and House Appropriations 
Committees, not later than April 30 of each year, summarizing 
the activities of the ARP during the immediate preceding fiscal 
year.

                        Maritime Administration

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Maritime Administration [MARAD] is responsible for 
programs authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as 
amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). MARAD is also 
responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime 
industry in support of the Nation's security and economic 
needs. MARAD prioritizes the Department of Defense's [DOD] use 
of ports and intermodal facilities during DOD mobilizations to 
guarantee the smooth flow of military cargo through commercial 
ports. MARAD manages the Maritime Security Program, the 
Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement Program, and the Ready 
Reserve Force, which assure DOD access to commercial and 
strategic sealift and associated intermodal capacity. MARAD 
also continues to address the disposal of obsolete ships in the 
National Defense Reserve Fleet that are deemed a potential 
environmental risk. Further, MARAD administers education and 
training programs through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and 
six State maritime schools that assist in providing skilled 
merchant marine officers who are capable of serving defense and 
commercial transportation needs. The Committee continues to 
fund MARAD in its support of the United States as a maritime 
Nation.

                       MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $186,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     211,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     186,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Maritime Security Program [MSP] provides resources to 
maintain a U.S.-flag merchant fleet crewed by U.S. citizens to 
serve both the commercial and national security needs of the 
United States. The program provides direct payments to U.S.-
flag ship operators engaged in U.S. foreign trade. 
Participating operators are required to keep the vessels in 
active commercial service and provide intermodal sealift 
support to DOD in times of war or national emergency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $186,000,000 
for the MSP. This amount is $25,000,000 less than the budget 
request and equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The 
recommended appropriation provides sufficient funds to satisfy 
the fully authorized payment level for fiscal year 2015.
    The MSP is a successful and critical partnership with the 
Department of Defense and the U.S.-flag commercial maritime 
industry that supports military operations overseas. The MSP 
provides a sealift fleet capacity that would cost the 
Government $13,000,000,000 in capital to reproduce. 
Furthermore, according to the United States Transportation 
Command, it would cost the Government an additional 
$52,000,000,000 to replicate the global intermodal system that 
is made available to the Department of Defense by MSP 
participants who are continuously developing, maintaining, and 
upgrading their logistical support systems. The Committee 
strongly encourages the Department of Transportation to 
continue to support this proven and cost effective program in 
its fiscal year 2016 budget request.

                        OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $148,003,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     148,400,000
Committee recommendation................................     149,900,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Operations and Training appropriation primarily funds 
the salaries and expenses for MARAD headquarters and regional 
staff in the administration and direction for all MARAD 
programs. The account includes funding for the U.S. Merchant 
Marine Academy, six State maritime schools, port and intermodal 
development, cargo preference, international trade relations, 
deep-water port licensing and administrative support costs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $149,900,000 
for Operations and Training at MARAD for fiscal year 2015 to be 
distributed between agency operations, the United States 
Merchant Marine Academy, and State maritime academies as 
outlined in the chart below. This amount is $1,897,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $1,500,000 more 
than the budget request.

                         MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year
                                                            2015 Senate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy............................     $80,090,000
    Academy Operations..................................      64,136,000
    Capital Improvements................................      12,000,000
    Facilities Maintenance, Repair and Equipment........       3,954,000
State Maritime Academies................................      19,100,000
    SMA Direct Payments.................................       4,200,000
    Student Incentive Payments..........................       2,400,000
    Schoolship Maintenance and Repair...................      11,300,000
    Fuel Assistance Payments............................       1,200,000
MARAD Operations........................................      50,710,000
                                                         ---------------
      TOTAL.............................................     149,900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment at the United States 
Merchant Marine Academy.--The United States Merchant Marine 
Academy [USMMA] provides educational programs for men and women 
to become shipboard officers and leaders in the maritime 
industry. The Committee is committed to ensuring the Academy's 
midshipmen receive the highest quality education to prepare 
them for a commission with the U.S. Naval Reserve or other 
uniformed service upon graduation.
    To that end, the Committee is very concerned about the 
increasing rate of incidents of sexual assault and sexual 
harassment at the Academy. The fiscal year 2009 Department of 
Defense Authorization Act set specific requirements in statue 
to address incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault. 
MARAD is required to conduct an annual assessment of the 
effectiveness of the USMMA policies, training and procedures. 
Every other year, MARAD is required to conduct a survey of 
staff and midshipmen.
    The USMMA survey of sexual harassment and sexual assault 
from the 2009-2010 academic year revealed disturbing results 
about conditions at the Academy. In response, the Secretary 
announced a nine point action plan in November 2011, aimed at 
fostering a climate that is intolerant of abuse, and focused on 
improving student and faculty trust and confidence in senior 
leadership.
    Unfortunately, the succeeding survey for the 2011-2012 
academic year revealed significant increases in the number of 
incidents, with the estimated rate of sexual assault more than 
doubling, and the estimated rate of sexual harassment 
increasing by more than 500 percent. Almost as disturbing is 
the fact that that none of these incidents were reported to 
USMMA officials.
    While the Committee recognizes that changes in the 
methodology between the 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 surveys may 
have affected the results, a dramatic increase in the number of 
incidents is indisputable, even when taking into consideration 
the potential margin of error and non-response bias. According 
to survey analysts, the level of non-response bias stemming 
from changing the survey from compulsory to voluntary 
participation ``seems more likely to understate the rate of 
unwanted sexual contact that overstate it.''
    MARAD contends that many of Secretary's reforms were not 
implemented prior to the second survey being conducted, and as 
a result the impact of these reforms is not reflected. Based on 
information the Department recently provided the Committee, 
this appears to be the case, yet it is totally unacceptable.
    According to the Department, many of the Secretary's 
proposed corrective actions were not slated for implementation 
until the second and third quarters of fiscal year 2012, 4 to 
10 months after the Secretary's plan was announced, and well 
into the next survey period. The Committee is deeply troubled 
by the inexcusably slow implementation of reforms after the 
deeply disturbing first survey.
    The Committee's confidence in the Department's commitment 
to confront abuse at the Academy has also been damaged by what 
appears to be the delayed release of survey findings. The 
survey results for the 2009-2010 academic year were not 
submitted to Congress until November 2011--more than a year 
after the survey was completed. Similarly, the survey results 
for the 2011-2012 academic year were not submitted to Congress 
until March 27, 2014--almost a year after that survey was 
completed, and again well into the current survey year now 
underway. Without a timely assessment of the survey results, 
the Academy cannot effectively determine if any of the changes 
to its policies or education and training programs are having a 
positive effect.
    It is imperative that senior leadership throughout the 
Department make improving conditions at the Academy a top 
priority. The survey for the 2013-2014 school year is now being 
administered and should be finalized by November 2014. The 
Committee directs the Secretary to provide the survey report to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 
January 12, 2015.
    The DOT inspector general is currently auditing of the 
implementation of the Secretary's nine point corrective action 
plan. The Committee expects to have preliminary findings of the 
audit this summer. This will provide useful information for 
Committee oversight. It should also aid the new DOT Secretary, 
who is equally committed to preventing these crimes from 
occurring and fostering a climate of trust and confidence to 
encourage the Academy's students to report them when they do.
    An annual report and biannual survey will be issued by 
MARAD in fiscal year 2015. The Committee directs the OIG to 
assess this new information and evaluate the progress the 
Academy has made to address corrective actions at the Academy. 
The OIG shall report its findings and recommendations to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than May 
2015.
    United States Merchant Marine Academy Board of Visitors.--
The recommended level of funding includes sufficient resources 
to support to the annual USMMA Board of Visitors meeting 
required in 46 U.S.C. 51312. The Committee directs MARAD to 
assign a designated Federal officer to assist the Board of 
Visitors in the performance of its functions. The Committee 
urges MARAD to seek additional support from the Department of 
the Navy since the USMMA is the second leading commissioning 
source for Naval Officers.
    Evaluation of the Statutory Authorities of the United 
States Merchant Marine Academy.--The Committee directs MARAD to 
conduct a legal review of existing statutory authorities of the 
USMMA and identify limitations that impede its ability to 
operate effectively and efficiently. In conducting this review, 
MARAD shall compare the statutory authorities of other service 
academies and public universities where suitable, including the 
acceptance of gifts and bequests, the legal and operational 
relationship with alumni foundations, and the use of non-
appropriated fund instrumentalities. The Committee directs 
MARAD to make recommendations where inconsistencies exist that 
would improve Academy operations and financial controls, as 
well as any other issues that the Superintendent or 
Administrator find appropriate. MARAD shall report its 
findings, conclusions and recommendations to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure no later than April 3, 2015.
    United States Merchant Marine Academy Capital Improvements 
Plan [CIP].--The Committee once again directs the Administrator 
to provide an annual report by March 31, 2015, on the current 
status of the CIP. The report should include a list of all 
projects that have received funding and all proposed projects 
that the Academy intends to initiate within the next 5 years; 
cost overruns and cost savings for each active project; 
specific target dates for project completion; delays and the 
cause of delays; schedule changes; up-to-date cost projections 
for each project; and any other deviations from the previous 
year's CIP.
    Environment and Compliance.--The Committee commends MARAD's 
initiative to support the domestic maritime industry's efforts 
to comply with emerging international and domestic 
environmental regulatory requirements. Funds provided in fiscal 
year 2015 should be used to continue independent testing of 
ballast water technologies to meet domestic and international 
regulatory requirements, assist in the testing and deployment 
of vessel air emissions reduction technology, and facilitate 
the liquefied natural gas [LNG] propulsion systems for 
increased energy efficiency at sea.

                             SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2014....................................      $4,800,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................       4,800,000
Committee Recommendation................................       4,800,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Ship Disposal account provides resources to dispose of 
obsolete merchant-type vessels of 150,000 gross tons or more in 
the National Defense Reserve Fleet [NDRF]. MARAD contracts with 
domestic shipbreaking companies to dismantle these vessels in 
accordance with guidelines established by the Environmental 
Protection Agency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,800,000 for 
MARAD's Ship Disposal program. This level of funding is equal 
to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and the budget request. 
This level of funding, in addition to the anticipated carryover 
from previous appropriations, is sufficient to meet the terms 
and conditions of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet settlement and 
continued activities related to NS Savannah. The total number 
of obsolete ships not yet under contract and awaiting disposal 
is down to 25. This is a historic low for the program.
    The Committee directs MARAD to take all actions practicable 
and reasonable to align the scope of vessels listed for 
inspection in the notice of vessel visitation to the subsequent 
notice of vessels available for sale. Further, MARAD shall make 
best value determinations and award ship recycling contracts no 
later than 90 days from the close of the ship specific 
solicitation period for sales offers and/or price revisions for 
vessel dismantlement/recycling services.

              MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM [TITLE XI]

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $38,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................       3,100,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,100,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides an appropriation of $7,100,000 for 
the loan guarantee program, of which $3,100,000 shall be used 
for administrative expenses of the maritime loan guarantee 
program. This level of funding is $4,000,000 more than the 
President's budget request and $31,400,000 less than the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level. The Committee recognizes the 
importance that the title XI program provides for the 
advancement of shipbuilding, aiding the U.S.-flag fleet, and 
sustainment of jobs for this critical sector of our national 
defense.

           ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

    Section 170 authorizes the Maritime Administration to 
furnish utilities and to service and make repairs to any lease, 
contract, or occupancy involving Government property under the 
control of MARAD. Rental payments received pursuant to this 
provision shall be credited to the Treasury as miscellaneous 
receipts.

         Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

    The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration 
[PHMSA] was established in the Department of Transportation on 
November 30, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research 
and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-246). 
PHMSA is responsible for the Department's pipeline safety 
program as well as oversight of hazardous materials 
transportation safety operations. The administration is 
dedicated to safety, including the elimination of 
transportation-related deaths and injuries associated with 
hazardous materials and pipeline transportation, and to 
promoting transportation solutions that enhance communities and 
protect the environment.

                          OPERATIONAL EXPENSES

                         (PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $21,654,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      22,225,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,225,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $22,225,000 for this account of 
which $1,500,000 may be transferred to the Office of Pipeline 
Safety for Information Grants to Communities. This level of 
funding is equal to the budget request and $571,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

                       HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $45,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................      46,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      52,000,000

\1\The budget request included a new user fee as offsetting collections 
in the amount of $12,000,000, bringing the total request to $52,000,000. 
CBO's re-estimate of the fee was $6,000,000, bringing the request level 
down to $46,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    PHMSA oversees the safety of more than 6.1 million tons of 
hazardous materials shipments daily in the United States, using 
risk management principles and security threat assessments to 
fully assess and reduce the risks inherent in hazardous 
materials transportation.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $52,000,000 
for hazardous materials safety, of which $7,000,000 shall 
remain available until September 30, 2017. The amount provided 
is equal to the administration's budget request and $7,000,000 
more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The increase in 
funding is provided to accommodate classification research, 
develop tank car design standards for liquefied natural gas, 
and conduct emergency response training and outreach. The 
Committee recommendation also includes $1,365,000 for 
additional regulatory, acquisitions, and hazardous materials 
safety inspection and enforcement staff.
    Classification Research, Testing and Standard Operating 
Procedures for Sample Collection.--The classification of 
flammable liquids establishes the requirements for packaging, 
hazard communications, operational controls, and safety and 
security planning for the rest of the supply chain. Proper 
classification ensures that emergency responders understand the 
hazards of the product being shipped and how to respond should 
there be an accident. The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,400,000 for research activities related to the testing of 
crude oil to determine the most appropriate test criteria, 
sampling methods, and testing procedures for energy products. 
This will help to identify any existing regulatory safety gaps 
with respect to classification and the correct selection of 
packing group.
    Tank Car Design.--There is indisputable evidence that the 
existing DOT-111 tank car design is an inadequate standard for 
the transportation of hazardous flammable liquids like crude 
oil and ethanol. The rail industry has taken meaningful, 
voluntary steps to improve tank car design specifications for 
the transportation of these commodities with the introduction 
of new standards in October 2011. Additional safety measures 
have been discussed to supplement these improvements after 
recent incidents at Lac Megantic, Quebec; Casselton, North 
Dakota; Aliceville, Alabama; and, Lynchburg, Virginia. PHMSA 
began regulatory action on this issue in September 2013. It is 
critical to establish a higher Federal regulatory standard for 
the transportation of these energy commodities to ensure the 
safety of communities and the environment. The Committee 
directs the Secretary to finalize the tank car design 
regulations no later than October 1, 2014. This is a long 
overdue safety standard that demands immediate action.
    Transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas.--Liquefied Natural 
Gas [LNG] is another energy commodity experiencing increased 
use as a fuel source for manufacturing and multiple modes of 
transportation. Current regulations for the handling and 
shipment of LNG are outdated and need to be reassessed. The 
Committee recommendation includes $1,400,000 to research, 
identify and establish a baseline bulk tank car and locomotive 
tender design standard for LNG, consistent with the budget 
request. PHMSA is directed to collaborate with FRA and the 
American Association of Railroads Tank Car Committee on this 
engineering analysis to inform future regulatory activity.
    Comprehensive Oil Spill Response Plans.--An oil spill 
response plan is intended to help the carrier identify and 
deploy a response organization to contain and remediate an oil 
release. The plans require carriers to identify a qualified 
individual with full authority to implement removal actions; 
ensure by contract or other means the availability of private 
personnel and equipment to remove a worst-case discharge; and 
describe training, equipment testing, drills and exercises.
    The NTSB has found that PHMSA regulations for oil spill 
response plans for the railroad industry are outdated and do 
not take into consideration the risks posed by the shipment of 
millions of barrels of oil per day in 120 tank car unit trains. 
Current regulations for comprehensive oil spill response plans 
are based on a single bulk packing unit of crude oil that 
exceeds 42,000 gallons, well above the quantity of crude oil 
that a single tank car can carry. This difference effectively 
exempts the rail industry from common sense safety requirements 
that other large shippers of crude oil--the maritime and 
pipeline industries--must meet. The Committee agrees with 
NTSB's concerns and directs PHMSA to re-evaluate whether the 
bulk packaging threshold for crude oil shipments by rail that 
would warrant the development of comprehensive oil spill 
response plans by rail carriers.
    User Fee Proposal.--In the fiscal year 2013-2015 budget 
proposals, PHMSA proposed the creation of a user fee to reduce 
the burden on the Federal taxpayer for financing special permit 
and approvals activities. The Committee finds that the program 
provides benefits to identifiable users above and beyond what 
is provided normally to the public, and the establishment of a 
user fee is fully justified under GAO guidelines and 
authorities granted by 31 U.S.C. 9701. However, the Committee 
believes that such a fee should be established through the 
regulatory process or should be addressed through the 
authorization process.
    Small-Scale Natural Gas Liquefaction Facilities.--Concerns 
have been raised about PHMSA's regulation of the siting of 
small-scale liquefaction facilities that generate and package 
LNG for use as a transportation fuel. These facilities are 
regulated by title 49 Code of Federal Regulations part 193, 
which was developed to address safety standards for LNG 
facilities used in the transportation of gas by pipeline and 
subject to the pipeline safety laws. The Committee believes 
these regulations are outdated, excessively challenging, and do 
not take into account the reduction in scale of these smaller 
facilities that provide fuel to vehicles and vessels. To 
address these concerns, PHMSA is directed to initiate a 
rulemaking or alternative risk-based compliance regime that 
incorporates more recent industry standards while preserving 
appropriate protections for public safety.

                            PIPELINE SAFETY

                         (PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

                    (OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

                  (PIPELINE SAFETY DESIGN REVIEW FUND)

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $119,087,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     158,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     158,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] is designed to promote 
the safe, reliable, and sound transportation of natural gas and 
hazardous liquids through the Nation's 2.6 million miles of 
privately owned and operated pipelines.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Pipeline Safety Office has the important responsibility 
of ensuring the safety and integrity of the pipelines that run 
through every community in our Nation. Efforts by Congress and 
the OPS to invest in promising safety technologies, increase 
civil penalties, and educate communities about the potential 
risks of pipelines have resulted in a reduction in serious 
pipeline incidents. It is essential that the agency continue to 
make strides in protecting communities from pipeline failures 
and incidents. To that end, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $158,000,000 for the Office of Pipeline 
Safety. The amount is $38,913,000 more than the fiscal year 
2014 enacted level and equal to the budget request. Of the 
funding provided, $19,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
Spill Liability Trust Fund, $136,500,000 shall be derived from 
the Pipeline Safety Fund, and $2,000,000 shall be derived from 
the Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund.
    This level of funding provides resources to hire additional 
safety training instructors, State safety grant specialists, 
and pipeline safety inspectors, as requested. The 
recommendation includes an increase of $10,000,000 for the 
State Pipeline Safety Grant Program and $12,310,000 for 
research and development activities, consistent with the budget 
request. Of the funds recommended for research and development, 
a minimum of $1,500,000 shall be used to continue efforts to 
develop inline inspection devices, known as smart pigs, that 
are capable of inspecting older pipelines that currently cannot 
be pigged, and up to $2,000,000 shall be used for the Pipeline 
Safety Research Competitive Academic Agreement Program [CAAP] 
to focus on near-term solutions to improve the safety and 
reliability of the Nation's pipeline transportation system.
    Integrity Management.--On August 25, 2011, nearly 3 years 
ago, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 
[PHMSA] within the Department of Transportation [DOT] put 
forward an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking [ANPRM] to 
determine if changes were needed to the regulations governing 
the safety of gas transmission pipelines. Within title 49 Code 
of Federal Regulations part 192, PHMSA was seeking information 
to determine if integrity management [IM] standards should be 
revised and strengthened to bring more pipeline mileage under 
IM requirements to better assure the safety of pipeline 
segments within high consequence areas [HCAs]. PHMSA was also 
attempting to determine if non-IM requirements should be 
strengthened or expanded to address other issues associated 
with pipeline safety integrity. To date, the rule has never 
been sent to the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] for 
review and not been proposed. Whereas we understand the 
importance of the rule, the Committee believes that PHMSA 
should have received sufficient input in the past 33 months to 
develop and propose a rule.
    Maintaining and improving the safety of our Nation's 
pipeline system and energy infrastructure are critically 
important issues for our Nation's citizens. In addition to 
improving safety, it is essential that policies are put in 
place that enable investments which upgrade and modernize the 
Nation's energy infrastructure. This is important to providing 
our economy with abundant, low-cost, reliable supplies of 
energy required to stimulate economic growth while achieving 
energy and environmental objectives. In particular, the Nation 
requires additional pipelines and related systems to meet 
increased demand for natural gas, which is playing an 
increasingly important role in meeting national energy 
requirements.

                     EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

                     (EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $28,318,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      28,318,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,318,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act 
of 1990 [HMTUSA] requires PHMSA to (1) develop and implement a 
reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 
public sector emergency response training and planning, and 
provide technical assistance to States, political subdivisions 
and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and periodically update a 
mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $28,318,000 and an equal 
obligation limitation for the emergency preparedness grant 
program. The recommendation provides PHMSA the authority to use 
$4,974,000 in prior year carryover and recaptures to develop a 
Web-based hazardous materials response training curriculum for 
emergency responders, including response activities for crude 
oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids by rail. The training 
curriculum shall be developed in coordination with the FRA and 
be consistent with National Fire Protection Association 
standards. Of the total amounts available from prior years 
carry over, a minimum of $3,500,000 shall be used to train 
public sector emergency response personnel in communities on or 
near rail lines that transport a significant volume of high-
risk energy commodities or toxic inhalation hazards.

      ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 
                          SAFETYADMINISTRATION

    Section 180. This section would increase the administrative 
costs for management of the Emergency Preparedness Grant 
program from 2 percent to 4 percent. This authority will assist 
PHMSA in addressing oversight, outreach and efficiency gaps 
identified by the DOT Inspector General.
    Section 181. The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and 
Job Creation Act 2011 (Public Law 112-90) established a new fee 
for companies engaged in the design, permitting and 
construction of new pipeline projects. This section clarifies 
the use of the fee collections as an offset to discretionary 
spending rather than as a mandatory receipt.

                      Office of Inspector General

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $85,605,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      86,223,000
Committee recommendation................................      86,223,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of 
Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective 
organization, with a mission to:
  --conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to 
        the programs and operations of the Department;
  --provide leadership and recommend policies designed to 
        promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the 
        administration of programs and operations;
  --prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and
  --keep the Secretary and Congress currently informed 
        regarding problems and deficiencies.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation provides $86,223,000 for 
activities of the Office of the Inspector General, which is 
equal to the President's budget request and $618,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    Audit Reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector 
General continue to forward copies of all audit reports to the 
Committee immediately after they are issued, and to continue to 
make the Committee aware immediately of any review that 
recommends cancellation or modifications to any major 
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant 
budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from 
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or 
investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate 
Committees on Appropriations.
    Sole-Source Contracts.--The Committee has included a 
provision in section 408 that requires all departments and 
agencies in this act to report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations on all sole-source contracts, 
including the contractor, the amount of the contract, and the 
rationale for a sole-source procurement as opposed to a market-
based procurement. The Committee directs the Inspector General 
to assess any conflicts of interest with regard to these 
contracts and DOT.
    Unfair Business Practices.--The bill maintains language 
which authorizes the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud 
and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of 
competition by air carriers and ticket agents.

                      Surface Transportation Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Crediting
                                         Appropriation      offsetting
                                                           collections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014..................      $31,000,000       $1,250,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\..............       31,500,000        1,250,000
Committee recommendation..............       31,500,000        1,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\STB submitted a budget request independently proposing a total
  appropriation of $34,441,000.

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Surface Transportation Board [STB] was created on 
January 1, 1996, by the Interstate Commerce Commission 
Termination Act of 1995 [ICCTA] (Public Law 104-88). The Board 
is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent 
adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT, and is 
responsible for the regulation of the rail and pipeline 
industries and certain nonlicensing regulation of motor 
carriers and water carriers.
    STB's rail oversight activities include rate 
reasonableness, car service and interchange, mergers, line 
acquisitions, line constructions, and abandonments. STB's 
jurisdiction also includes certain oversight of the intercity 
bus industry, pipeline carriers, intercity passenger train 
service, rate regulation involving noncontiguous domestic water 
transportation, household goods carriers, and collectively 
determined motor carrier rates.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$31,500,000. This funding level is equal to the budget request 
and $500,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 
Included in the recommendation is $1,250,000 in fees, which 
will offset the appropriated funding.

            General Provisions--Department of Transportation

    Section 190 allows funds for maintenance and operation of 
aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or 
allowances, as authorized by law.
    Section 191 limits appropriations for services authorized 
by 5 U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an Executive Level 
IV.
    Section 192 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and 
expenses of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees 
in the Department of Transportation.
    Section 193 prohibits recipients of funds made available in 
the act from releasing personal information, including Social 
Security numbers, medical and disability information, and 
photographs, from a driver's license or motor vehicle record 
without the express consent of the person to whom such 
information pertains; and prohibits the Secretary of 
Transportation from withholding funds provided in this act from 
any grantee in noncompliance with this provision.
    Section 194 allows funds received by the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal 
Railroad Administration from States, counties, municipalities, 
other public authorities, and private sources for expenses 
incurred for training may be credited to each agency's 
respective accounts.
    Section 195 prohibits the use of funds in this act to make 
a grant or announce the intention to make a grant unless the 
Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations at least 3 full business days 
before making the grant or the announcement.
    Section 196 allows rebates, refunds, incentive payments, 
minor fees, and other funds received by the Department of 
Transportation from travel management center, charge card 
programs, subleasing of building space and miscellaneous 
sources to be credited to appropriations of the Department of 
Transportation.
    Section 197 requires amounts from improper payments to a 
third-party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the 
Department of Transportation to be available to cover expenses 
incurred in recovery of such payments.
    Section 198 establishes requirements for reprogramming 
actions by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    Section 199 prohibits the Surface Transportation Board from 
charging filing fees for rate or practice complaints that are 
greater than the fees authorized for district court civil 
suits.
    Section 199A prohibits funds appropriated in this act to 
the modal administrations from being obligated for the Office 
of the Secretary for costs related to assessments or 
reimbursable agreements unless the obligations are for services 
that provide a direct benefit to the applicable modal 
administration.
    Section 199B authorizes the Secretary to carry out a 
program that establishes uniform standards for developing and 
supporting agency transit pass and transit benefits authorized 
under section 7905 of title 5, United States Code.

                                TITLE II

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was 
established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public 
Law 89-174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the 
principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned 
with the Nation's housing needs, fair housing opportunities, 
and improving and developing the Nation's communities.
    In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and 
interests of the Nation's communities and of the people who 
live and work in them, HUD administers mortgage and loan 
insurance programs that help families become homeowners and 
facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and 
homeownership subsidy programs for low-income families who 
otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat 
discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair 
housing opportunities; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate 
supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid neighborhood 
rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of 
our urban centers from blight and decay.
    HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the 
marketplace, and fosters programs and research that stimulate 
and guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but 
better communities and living environments.
    As HUD works to fulfill its mission, the Committee urges 
the Secretary to enhance efforts to provide decent, affordable 
housing and to promote economic development for rural 
Americans. When designing programs and making funding 
decisions, the Secretary shall take into consideration the 
unique conditions, challenges, and scale of rural areas.
    The Committee notes that poverty is far too prevalent in 
the United States. HUD should work with Congress and other 
partners to implement policies and support proven anti-poverty 
programs that reduce the existence of poverty and the suffering 
associated with it. The Committee also encourages HUD to 
increase interagency collaboration to ensure Federal resources 
are strategically deployed in order to achieve the most 
effective outcomes, while also reducing overlap and 
duplication.
    Reprogramming and Congressional Notification.--The 
Committee reiterates that the Department must limit the 
reprogramming of funds between the programs, projects, and 
activities within each account without prior approval of the 
Committees on Appropriations. Unless otherwise identified in 
the bill or report, the most detailed allocation of funds 
presented in the budget justifications is approved, with any 
deviation from such approved allocation subject to the normal 
reprogramming requirements. Except as specifically provided 
otherwise, it is the intent of the Committee that all carryover 
funds in the various accounts, including recaptures and de-
obligations, are subject to the normal reprogramming 
requirements outlined above. No change may be made to any 
program, project, or activity if it is construed to be new 
policy or a change in policy, without prior approval of the 
Committees on Appropriations. The Committee also directs HUD to 
include a separate delineation of any reprogramming of funds 
requiring approval be included in the operating plan required 
by section 405 of this act. Finally, the Committee expects to 
be notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs or 
activities prior to the implementation of such reorganizations, 
as well as be notified, on a monthly basis, of all ongoing 
litigation, including any negotiations or discussions, planned 
or ongoing, regarding a consent decree between the Department 
and any other entity, including the estimated costs of such 
decrees.

                     Management and Administration

                           EXECUTIVE OFFICES

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $14,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      15,234,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,700,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Executive Offices account provides the salaries and 
expenses funding to support the Department's senior leadership 
and other key functions, including the immediate offices of the 
Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Congressional and 
Intergovernmental Relations, Public Affairs, Adjudicatory 
Services, the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, 
and the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,700,000 
for this account, which is $200,000 more than the fiscal year 
2014 enacted level and $534,000 less than the budget request. 
The Secretary is directed to submit a spending plan to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that outlines how 
budgetary resources will be distributed among the seven offices 
funded under this heading.

                     Administrative Support Offices

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $506,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     530,783,000
Committee recommendation................................     519,867,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Administrative Support Offices account is the backbone 
of HUD's operations, and consists of several offices that are 
supposed to work seamlessly to provide the leadership and 
support services to ensure the Department performs its core 
mission and is compliant with all legal, operational, and 
financial guidelines. This account funds the salaries and 
expenses of the Office of General Counsel, the Office of the 
Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the Chief Procurement 
Officer, the Office of Departmental Equal Employment 
Opportunity, the Office of Field Policy and Management, the 
Office of Strategic Planning and Management, the Office of the 
Chief Human Capital Officer, the Office of Administration, and 
the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $519,867,000 
for this account, which is $13,867,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level and $10,916,000 less than the budget 
request.
    The President's fiscal year 2015 budget proposes one amount 
of funding for all offices under the heading of administrative 
support offices, eliminating budget line items for each office. 
The Committee created the existing funding structure to 
increase the transparency of HUD's personnel funding. Over the 
years, the Committee has modified the structure to make it more 
effective. For example, in fiscal year 2012, the Committee 
consolidated funding provided separately for personnel and non-
personnel funding into one allocation for each office, and in 
fiscal year 2014 it created the Executive Offices account for 
management offices with smaller funding needs. Moreover, the 
Committee has worked with HUD to respond to reprogramming 
requests necessary to address funding challenges that have 
arisen during the fiscal year. Therefore, the Committee 
recommendation rejects this latest proposal to modify the 
structure. The Committee expects HUD to manage its resources as 
provided and will continue to work with it to address 
challenges that come up during the year.
    Funds are made available as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Chief Human Capital Officer...................     $58,000,000
Office of Administration................................     198,800,000
Office of Chief Financial Officer.......................      48,000,000
Office of Chief Procurement Officer.....................      16,330,000
Office of Field Policy and Management...................      51,135,000
Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity.....       3,202,000
Office of General Counsel...............................      94,640,000
Office of Strategic Planning and Management.............       4,560,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer.................      45,200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Office of the Chief Information Officer.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $45,200,000 for this office, which is 
$9,415,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. This 
increase is associated with a budget realignment that is moving 
funding for contractor support to this account from the 
``Information Technology Fund'' account, since these costs are 
more appropriately categorized as salaries and expenses than IT 
funding.
    Office of the Chief Financial Officer.--The recommendation 
for the OCFO reflects reduced staffing as a result of the 
shared services agreement with the Bureau of the Fiscal 
Service's Administrative Resource Center. When accounting for 
this change, funding is available to maintain the rest of its 
workforce. The Committee remains focused on the staffing levels 
in the Office of Budget, and directs HUD to move expeditiously 
to address staffing needs there.
    The Committee commends the work of the Appropriations Law 
Division in the OCFO and encourages the Department to maximize 
its use of this valuable resource. The Committee reminds the 
Department of its intent that all appropriations law issues be 
referred to and addressed by such division.
    Procurement.--The Committee directs HUD to continue to 
provide semi-annual updates to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations on how system and process changes made in the 
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer [CPO] have impacted its 
ability to execute contracts. These should include quantifiable 
measures of progress, such as the time it takes to execute a 
contract or reduced overtime, in comparison to previous fiscal 
years and government standards. The Committee notes that CPO 
has not submitted these reports in a timely manner and expects 
it to be more responsive in the future.

                 Program Offices Salaries and Expenses

                       PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $205,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     213,664,000
Committee recommendation................................     205,525,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides salary and benefits funding to 
support staff in headquarters and in 46 field offices in the 
Office of Public and Indian Housing [PIH]. PIH is charged with 
ensuring the availability of safe, decent, and affordable 
housing, creating opportunities for residents' self-sufficiency 
and economic independence, and assuring the fiscal integrity of 
all public housing agencies. The Office ensures that safe, 
decent and affordable housing is available to Native American 
families, creates economic opportunities for tribes and Indian 
housing residents, assists tribes in the formulation of plans 
and strategies for community development, and assures fiscal 
integrity in the operation of its programs. The Office also 
administers programs authorized in the Native American Housing 
Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 [NAHASDA], which 
provides housing assistance to Native Americans and Native 
Hawaiians. PIH also manages the Housing Choice Voucher program, 
in which tenant-based vouchers increase affordable housing 
choices for low-income families. Tenant-based vouchers enable 
families to lease safe, decent, and affordable privately owned 
rental housing.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $205,525,000 
for this account, which is $8,139,000 less than the budget 
request and $525,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted 
level. The Committee recommendation supports existing 
personnel, and will allow the agency to make critical hires as 
a result of a reduction of $3,700,000 in non-personnel services 
that was provided in fiscal year 2014 for a one-time contract. 
The Committee directs HUD to continue to focus these resources 
on strengthening its oversight functions, including oversight 
of Moving-to-Work agencies. Within the funds provided, HUD is 
directed to dedicate one FTE to the Office of Native American 
Programs to work on coordinating and streamlining environmental 
reviews required by various Federal departments for Native 
American housing projects. In addition, the Committee directs 
HUD to provide at least one additional FTE to work on the 
Family Self-Sufficiency and ROSS programs. Finally, the funding 
level includes additional resources requested for travel 
associated with grantee oversight.
    The Committee also urges HUD to look for ways to better 
integrate offices within PIH. The Committee notes that various 
offices within PIH share responsibility for overseeing public 
housing agencies and the programs that they run. It is 
imperative that these different facets of PIH improve 
coordination to reduce the amount of information they request 
from PHAs, look for ways to create efficiencies, and ensure 
policies align across programs.
    The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to 
continue inspection efforts funded in fiscal year 2014. This 
includes efforts to move to a consistent inspection standard 
across housing assistance programs, as well as oversight of 
section 8 units.

                   COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $102,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     110,535,000
Committee recommendation................................     103,300,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides salary and benefits funding for 
Community Planning and Development [CPD] staff in headquarters 
and in 43 field offices. CPD's mission is to support successful 
urban, suburban and rural communities by promoting integrated 
approaches to community and economic development. CPD programs 
also assist in the expansion of opportunities for low- and 
moderate-income individuals and families in moving towards home 
ownership. The Assistant Secretary for CPD administers formula 
and competitive grant programs, as well as guaranteed loan 
programs, that help communities plan and finance their growth 
and development. These programs also help communities increase 
their capacity to govern and provide shelter and services for 
homeless persons and other persons with special needs, 
including person with HIV/AIDS.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $103,300,000 
for the staffing within this office, which is $7,235,000 less 
than the budget request and $1,300,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level. The recommendation also includes 
funding for the Office of Economic Resilience. The recommended 
level of funding, which reflects savings in fiscal year 2015 
due to the completion of a contract, will support additional 
FTE focused on grant oversight and monitoring, as well as 
additional support for the Section 108 loan program.

                                HOUSING

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $381,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     386,677,000
Committee recommendation................................     386,677,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides salary and benefits funding to 
support staff in headquarters and in 52 field locations in the 
Office of Housing. The Office of Housing is responsible for 
implementing programs to assist projects for occupancy by very 
low- and moderate-income households, to provide capital grants 
to nonprofit sponsors for the development of housing for the 
elderly and handicapped, and to conduct several regulatory 
functions. The Office also administers Federal Housing 
Administration [FHA] programs. FHA administers HUD's mortgage 
and loan insurance programs, which facilitate the financing of 
new construction, rehabilitation or the purchase of existing 
dwelling units. The Office also provides services to maintain 
and preserve homeownership, especially for underserved 
populations. This assistance allows lenders to make lower cost 
financing available to more borrowers for home and home 
improvement loans, and apartment, hospital, and nursing home 
loans. FHA provides a vital link in addressing America's 
homeownership and affordable housing needs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $386,677,000 
for staffing in the Office of Housing, which is equal to the 
budget request and $5,177,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level. The Committee has also directed that at least 
$9,000,000 be dedicated to the Office of Risk and Regulatory 
Affairs.
    At the end of April 2013, HUD proposed to reorganize the 
Office of Multifamily Housing. The plan is designed to 
streamline operations, improve program delivery, and save 
taxpayer funding. After examination of the proposal, the 
Committee approved a modified plan that reorganizes offices at 
headquarters and consolidates the production functions into 12 
field offices. However, the plan maintains asset management 
functions and associated staff in existing field offices. This 
adjustment was made to ensure that HUD would maintain a 
presence in communities near Federal assets. The Committee 
recognizes that HUD still intends to continue to pursue a 
broader consolidation. However, the Committee directs HUD not 
to make any changes to the approved plan in fiscal year 2015. 
Instead, HUD should monitor the implementation of the staff 
changes in the field, as well as the process changes occurring 
in all offices. Further, HUD is directed to report to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 days of 
enactment of this act on how the reorganization is proceeding, 
any issues identified with the initial waves of the transition, 
how such changes are affecting program oversight and delivery, 
and any adjustments that HUD plans to make based on lessons 
learned.

                    POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $22,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      23,248,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,300,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides salary and benefits funding to 
support staff in headquarters and in 16 field locations in the 
Office of Policy Development and Research [PD&R]. PD&R supports 
the Department's efforts to help create cohesive, economically 
healthy communities. PD&R is responsible for maintaining 
current information on housing needs, market conditions, and 
existing programs, as well as conducting research on priority 
housing and community development issues. The office provides 
reliable and objective data and analysis to help inform policy 
decisions.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,300,000 
for this account, which is $948,000 less than the budget 
request and $300,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted 
level.
    PD&R collects and distributes data on HUD programs, the 
people HUD serves, and housing needs across the country. The 
information it makes available and the analysis it provides to 
the Department are essential to moving HUD to outcomes based 
performance measures. The Committee also relies on the data and 
research provided by PD&R to inform its work. The recommended 
amount will ensure that PD&R can continue to play this 
important role.

                   FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $69,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      77,629,000
Committee recommendation................................      69,700,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides salary and benefits funding to 
support staff in headquarters and in 42 field locations in the 
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity [FHEO]. FHEO is 
responsible for investigating, resolving, and prosecuting 
complaints of housing discrimination, as well as conducting 
education and outreach activities to increase awareness of the 
requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The Office also develops 
and interprets fair housing policy, processes complaints, 
performs compliance reviews, and provides oversight and 
technical assistance to local housing authorities and community 
development agencies regarding section 3 of the Housing and 
Urban Development Act of 1968.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $69,700,000, 
which is $7,929,000 less than the budget request and $700,000 
more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

            OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL AND HEALTHY HOMES

Appropriations, 2014....................................      $7,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................       7,879,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,075,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,075,000 for 
this account, which is $804,000 less than the budget request 
and $75,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

                       Public and Indian Housing

                    RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION

Appropriations, 2014....................................................
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     $10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Rental Assistance Demonstration [RAD] is testing a 
potentially promising model to preserve public housing. 
Participation in the program by public housing agencies is 
voluntary and involves the conversion of existing public 
housing units to an improved form of property-based rental 
assistance. This form of rental assistance would enable public 
housing agencies to leverage private sector resources in order 
to recapitalize this housing stock and maintain these units of 
affordable housing.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for the 
Rental Assistance Demonstration, equal to the President's 
budget request. No funding was provided for RAD in fiscal year 
2014. In fiscal year 2012, the Committee began a demonstration 
to test the success of converting public housing and other 
assisted housing to section 8 vouchers or project-based section 
8 contracts as a means of recapitalizing and preserving the 
long-term viability of affordable housing.
    The recommended funding level will allow HUD to convert 
3,000 units of public housing in high-poverty neighborhoods 
that would be unable to address their capital needs without an 
increased subsidy. The Committee has included this funding 
because it is committed to preserving desperately needed 
affordable housing and believes RAD is a critical part of 
accomplishing that goal.
    In fiscal year 2012, the Committee set a cap of 60,000 on 
the number of units that could participate in the 
demonstration. At the time, it seemed sufficient to accommodate 
PHA demand for the program. However, the interest has far 
exceeded this level; at the end of December 2013, there were 
applications covering over 175,000 units. While the 
administration has requested lifting the cap entirely, the 
Committee understands the interest in learning more about the 
outcomes of the program before doing so. Therefore, the 
Committee has included language that raises the cap to 185,000 
units, which will provide all PHAs that applied before the cap 
was reached an opportunity to participate in the program.
    In addition to the conversion of public housing, the 
Committee recommendation also includes language that will allow 
single room occupancy [SRO], rent supplemental and rental 
housing assistance payment projects to convert to section 8. 
While no new projects are funded through these rental 
assistance programs, HUD continues to administer existing 
projects, all of which have different rules and requirements. 
The Committee hopes that the gradual consolidation of these 
projects into HUD's existing mainstream rental assistance 
programs will create efficiencies and address GAO's concerns 
about the number of rental assistance programs. In addition, 
the Committee expects that by putting these projects on a more 
modern and familiar housing platform, it will secure their 
long-term affordability.
    The Committee encourages housing authorities that 
participate in the Rental Assistance Demonstration program to 
grant current workers whose employment positions are eliminated 
during conversion the right of first refusal for new employment 
openings for which they are qualified.

                     TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2014\1\................................. $19,177,218,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................  20,045,000,000
Committee recommendation\1\.............................  19,562,160,000

\1\Includes an advance appropriation of $4,000,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for the section 8 tenant-
based (voucher) program. Section 8 tenant-based housing 
assistance is one of the principle appropriations for Federal 
housing assistance, serving approximately 2.2 million families. 
The program also funds incremental vouchers for tenants who 
live in properties where the owner has decided to leave the 
section 8 program. The program also provides for the 
replacement of units lost from the assisted housing inventory 
through its tenant protection vouchers. Under these programs, 
eligible low-income individuals families pay 30 percent of 
their adjusted income for rent, and the Federal Government is 
responsible for the remainder of the rent, up to the fair 
market rent or some other payment standard. This account also 
provides funding for administrative fees for public housing 
authorities, mainstream vouchers, and Housing and Urban 
Development Veterans Supportive Housing [HUD-VASH] programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$19,562,160,000 for fiscal year 2015, including $4,000,000,000 
as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1, 
2014. This amount is $482,840,000 less than the budget request 
and $384,942,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    The Committee recommends $17,719,000,000 for the renewal 
costs of section 8 vouchers, which is $287,550,000 less than 
the budget request and $353,473,000 more than the fiscal year 
2014 enacted level.
    The section 8 rental assistance program is a critical tool 
that enables more than 2 million low-income individuals and 
families to access safe, stable and affordable housing in the 
private market.
    In recognition of the section 8 program's central role in 
ensuring housing for vulnerable Americans, the Committee 
recommendation includes sufficient resources to ensure that no 
current voucher holders are put at risk of losing their 
housing. The recommended funding level reflects an inflation 
adjustment that reduces voucher costs from the original budget 
request. It also supports the first-time renewal of incremental 
vouchers that were funded in prior years, including HUD-VASH 
vouchers. The Committee will continue to monitor leasing data 
to make sure residents are protected.
    Last year, the Committee included several reform provisions 
designed to reduce program costs or create efficiencies in 
program delivery. While this is an important step in improving 
the program, the Committee hopes that a broader section 8 
reform bill will be enacted. A full reform bill is expected to 
modernize other aspects of the program and expand the Moving to 
Work [MTW] program, while increasing reporting by MTW agencies.
    In the absence of a reform bill, the Committee expects HUD 
to update regulations that don't require congressional action. 
In recent years, PHAs have faced serious funding constraints, 
and the Committee voiced concerns at HUD's budget hearing on 
the burdensome requirements they must continue to meet. It is 
therefore imperative that HUD work to ensure scarce 
administrative dollars are directed toward requirements that 
will ensure housing safety standards, protect residents, and 
save taxpayer dollars. It is clear that some existing 
regulations are creating burdens for PHAs with little benefit 
to the oversight of the program. At the same time, HUD should 
be requiring different information that would provide better 
insight into its programs and improve its oversight. In fiscal 
year 2014, the Committee required HUD to report on regulations 
that need to be updated or new regulations that should be 
promulgated. The report is expected in July, and the Committee 
expects that this will be a comprehensive and thoughtful report 
with recommendations upon which HUD and Congress can act.
    Cash Management.--The Committee notes that the Office of 
Inspector General's audit of HUD's fiscal year 2013 financial 
statements identified a material weakness in PIH's cash 
management process. Specifically, it found that the process 
departs from GAAP and Treasury requirements. The Committee has 
voiced concern with PIH's cash management practices before this 
finding, particularly since it limits understanding of the true 
funding needs in the voucher program.
    The Committee notes that tenant-based assistance is not 
fundamentally different from public housing or project-based 
assistance, yet it is the only rental assistance program at the 
Department that disburses funds without the housing authority 
or project owner submitting a request for reimbursement.
    The Committee stresses the importance of resolving this 
audit finding swiftly and implementing a cash management 
process that complies with GAAP and Treasury requirements, and 
also provides greater transparency into voucher renewal needs. 
Therefore, HUD is directed to submit a plan to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment 
of this act, identifying how the Department will implement new 
cash management policies during fiscal year 2015 and require 
housing authorities to draw down funds; a practice most housing 
authorities already do through the public housing programs.
    Finance and Governance.--PHAs are local entities managed by 
housing boards and commissioners that provide oversight at the 
local level. In examining the circumstances that result in 
public housing authorities becoming troubled, problems with 
finance and governance are often the root cause. The Committee 
notes that PIH launched the PHA Recovery and Sustainability 
model to focus resources and attention on improving troubled or 
near-troubled PHAs, and specifically governance and financial 
management. While the vast majority of housing authorities 
operate their programs effectively, the Committee believes that 
HUD should be providing this type of information and training 
to all PHAs, not just those that are troubled or near troubled.
    In fiscal year 2014, the Committee directed HUD to work 
with its OIG to determine the critical skills that PHA boards 
should have to effectively oversee PHA operations, as well as 
the actions HUD will take to ensure that PHAs possess them. The 
Committee understands this work is beginning in fiscal year 
2014, and looks forward to the report HUD must submit in July 
on its findings and how it will ensure PHA Boards have the 
necessary skills to adequately perform their duties.
    Set-Asides for Special Circumstances.--The Committee has 
provided a set-aside of $75,000,000 to allow the Secretary to 
adjust allocations to PHAs under certain circumstances. 
Qualifying factors include: (1) a significant increase, as 
determined by the Secretary, in renewal costs of tenant-based 
rental assistance resulting from unforeseen circumstances and 
voucher utilization or the impact from portability under 
section 8(r) of the act; (2) vouchers that were not in use 
during the previous 12-month period in order to be available to 
meet a commitment pursuant to section 8(o)(13) of the act; (3) 
adjustments or costs associated with HUD-VASH vouchers; and (4) 
possible termination of families as a result of insufficient 
funding. A PHA should not receive an adjustment to its 
allocation from the funding provided under this section if the 
Secretary determines that such PHA, through negligence or 
intentional actions, would exceed its authorized level of 
vouchers.
    Pilot for Homeless Native Americans.--Since 2008, the 
Committee has been providing funding for the joint HUD-Veterans 
Affairs Supportive Housing Program [HUD-VASH] aimed at ending 
veteran homelessness. The success of this effort can be seen in 
the results of HUD's most recent Point-in-Time count in 2013, 
which showed that homelessness among veterans has been reduced 
by over 24 percent since 2010.
    However, as a result of program rules, these vouchers are 
not available to serve Native American veterans living on 
tribal lands that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. 
While limited data has made assessing need difficult, in fiscal 
year 2012, the VA conducted an analysis on the number of at-
risk veterans living in Indian Country. Its limited analysis 
found that at least 2,047 veterans served by VA homeless 
programs were likely living in these areas, which demonstrates 
the need for supportive housing assistance. Moreover, tribes 
are seeking access to HUD-VASH vouchers to assist their 
veterans. While differences in programs and the limited 
availability of housing in Indian Country makes adoption of the 
existing HUD-VASH model challenging, the Committee wants to 
understand how to effectively meet this need.
    While the administration requested the flexibility to 
provide vouchers to tribally designated housing entities for 
use on reservations, the Committee is instead requiring HUD to 
set aside a portion of HUD-VASH funding for a pilot designed to 
provide housing and supportive services to veterans who are 
homeless or at-risk of homelessness living on tribal 
reservations or in Indian areas. The Committee directs HUD to 
set aside a sufficient amount of funding to evaluate this model 
and test it on reservations and Indian areas in different 
locations.
    The rental assistance and administrative costs associated 
with this pilot will be run through the Indian Housing Block 
Grant program to ensure funding is provided to appropriate 
housing providers and that there is consistency in the 
implementation of rental assistance and program rules for 
selected providers. The Office of Native American Programs 
[ONAP] should work with PIH's Voucher Office on effective ways 
to apply the HUD-VASH model on tribal lands. The Voucher Office 
and ONAP should work together with the Department of Veterans 
Affairs on referrals to the program and to ensure services are 
appropriately provided to participating veterans. Given the 
unique housing challenges on reservations that will require 
modifications to the existing HUD-VASH model, HUD should 
consider using vouchers to facilitate the creation of new 
housing. The Committee has also included funding to provide 
culturally appropriate technical assistance to tribes 
administering the housing-plus services model.
    HUD-VASH Move-in Costs.--The Committee notes that move-in 
costs can present a problem for homeless veterans trying to 
secure housing as part of the HUD-VASH program. The Committee 
recognizes this challenge and urges HUD to work with the VA, as 
well as local and national organizations to identify resources 
that can be used to assist homeless veterans with these 
expenses.
    Administrative Fees.--The Committee recommends 
$1,555,000,000 for administrative fees, which is $150,000,000 
less than the budget request and $55,000,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    In fiscal year 2008, the Committee provided HUD with 
funding to begin a study on the amount of administrative fees 
necessary for PHAs to effectively manage their section 8 
programs. The Committee received HUD's preliminary assessment, 
and looks forward to the comprehensive study, which should 
provide more reliable information on which to base policy 
decisions.
    Tenant Protection Vouchers.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $130,000,000 for tenant protection vouchers. These 
vouchers are provided to public housing residents whose 
buildings have health or safety issues, or whose projects are 
being demolished. However, the largest share of these vouchers 
is provided to tenants living in properties with expiring HUD 
assistance that may face rent increases if their owners opt out 
of HUD programs. In these instances, the vouchers ensure 
continued affordability of tenants' housing.
    The Committee has included a new provision, as requested, 
that will limit reissuance of tenant protection vouchers that 
are provided to families temporarily displaced by demolition or 
rehabilitation of affordable housing. The Committee wants to 
ensure the protection of tenants and the preservation of 
affordable housing, and these vouchers help meet that goal. At 
the same time, these vouchers are not designed to increase the 
amount of affordable housing. Therefore, in a case where a 
voucher is substituting for a unit that is temporarily 
unavailable, but will be replaced, the voucher should end when 
the tenant using it either returns to the new or rehabilitated 
unit, or, if they choose not to occupy it, when he or she exits 
the program.
    Section 811 Mainstream Vouchers.--The Committee recommends 
$83,160,000 to continue the rental assistance and 
administrative costs of this program. While this amount is 
$25,290,000 below the President's request, it is sufficient to 
maintain all existing vouchers. Due to the transition of the 
program from the project-based rental assistance account to the 
tenant-based rental assistance account, balances have 
accumulated that have been carried forward from year to year. 
The level of funding for fiscal year 2015 reflects the drawdown 
of these carryover balances to sustain the program.

                        HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

                         (INCLUDES RESCISSIONS)

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Until fiscal year 2005, the Housing Certificate Fund 
provided funding for both the project-based and tenant-based 
components of the section 8 program. Project-based rental 
assistance and tenant-based rental assistance are now 
separately funded accounts. The Housing Certificate Fund 
retains balances from previous years' appropriations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has not included a rescission from the 
Housing Certificate Fund in fiscal year 2015, consistent with 
the President's request. The Committee has included language 
that will allow unobligated balances from specific accounts to 
be used to renew or amend Project-Based Rental Assistance 
contracts.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2014....................................  $1,875,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................   1,925,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,900,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for modernization and capital 
needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing 
authorities), including management improvements, resident 
relocation, and homeownership activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,900,000,000 
for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is $25,000,000 less 
than the budget request and $25,000,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level.
    Of the amount made available under this account, 
$45,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public 
housing under the Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency 
[ROSS] program. The Committee also recommends up to $5,000,000 
to support the ongoing financial and physical assessment 
activities performed by the Real Estate Assessment Center 
[REAC] and $3,000,000 for the cost of administrative and 
judicial receiverships.
    Flexibility To Meet Pressing Needs.--The Committee notes 
that the President's budget proposed providing public housing 
authorities with full flexibility to move funds between their 
operating and capital funds. The Committee shares the goal of 
providing PHAs with the flexibility to meet their highest 
priority needs, and giving PHAs the tools to manage their 
portfolios more effectively. At the same time, the Committee is 
concerned that the administration's proposal lacks sufficient 
transparency into how Federal funds will be spent.
    In an effort to achieve an appropriate balance between 
flexibility and accountability, the Committee has included 
alternative provisions designed to provide PHAs with mechanisms 
to better meet their capital and operations needs. The first 
provision provides PHAs with the authority to transfer up to 20 
percent of their operating funds to their capital fund. This 
provides PHAs with not only the ability to reinvest operational 
savings in their properties, but also creates an incentive for 
them to do so. In addition, language is included for fiscal 
year 2015 that allows PHAs to transfer up to 30 percent of 
their capital funds to their operating fund.
    A second provision permits housing authorities to establish 
and maintain replacement reserves. Establishing and maintaining 
replacement or capital reserves is common practice in real 
estate, and in fact, they are required for projects in HUD 
multifamily programs. However, the existing obligation 
deadlines for public housing capital funds prevent the 
establishment of such reserves. This limits the ability of PHAs 
to save for planned capital projects necessary to maintain 
housing in good condition.
    The Committee expects the Department to move quickly to set 
up the rules and requirements around the capital reserves so 
that PHAs can utilize this new tool to address the significant 
backlog of capital needs and better plan for future capital 
requirements. This should include how HUD will ensure that 
funds are being saved for and spent on needed capital projects.
    Safety and Security in Public Housing.--In October 2013, 
HUD published a new capital fund rule, which included more 
detail on eligible uses of funding, and stated that certain 
ongoing safety and security costs are an ineligible use of 
capital funds. This change was not included in the proposed 
rule, and as a result, there was no opportunity for public 
comment on it. The Committee is concerned that the rule change 
will leave some public housing authorities unable to continue 
existing security functions that are necessary to protect 
public housing and ensure the safety of residents. The 
Committee has provided additional flexibility to PHAs by 
increasing the amount they can transfer from their public 
housing capital to operating fund to help address this concern, 
but has also provided HUD with the authority to waive the 
transfer limit in order to ensure that these important safety 
activities can continue. In addition, the Committee directs HUD 
to do an analysis of the impact of this change on the ability 
of housing authorities to ensure safety in their housing. 
Further, the Committee directs HUD to submit a letter report to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on these 
findings within 120 days of enactment of this act, including 
any recommendations to address problems it identifies.
    In addition, the Committee directs at least $6,000,000 of 
the $23,000,000 recommended for emergency capital needs be for 
safety and security measures necessary to address crime and 
drug-related activity in public housing. The Committee has 
included this specific set-aside because there are PHAs facing 
safety and security issues that rely on these funds to protect 
their tenants. The Committee notes that the demand for these 
funds continues to grow while the amount that HUD is awarding 
to PHAs is decreasing. The recommended level of funding 
represents an increase of $3,000,000 over the fiscal year 2014 
level to ensure that funding for needs associated with natural 
disasters as well as safety and security can be met within the 
appropriated level of funding, and urges HUD to award funds to 
PHAs as quickly as possible.
    Physical Needs Assessment.--The Committee notes the 
importance of being able to assess the physical quality of the 
public housing stock and to plan for regular maintenance, 
upkeep, and replacement. This information is critical to 
ensuring that limited Federal funding is targeted to 
effectively meet those needs, and every PHA should be able to 
identify the physical needs of their inventory. In an attempt 
to apply a degree of uniformity across PHAs, the department has 
developed a Physical Need Assessment [PNA] tool and issued a 
proposed rule governing its use. The Committee appreciates this 
well-intentioned effort. However, numerous concerns have been 
raised surrounding the metrics it seeks to measure and how, or 
if, all the collected data will be used to provide effective 
program oversight. Additional concerns have been raised that 
multiple offices within HUD are seeking to collect overlapping 
data using different collection methods, failing to coordinate 
their efforts within the department and adding unnecessarily to 
PHAs' administrative burdens. Concerns have also been raised 
about the ability of PHAs to easily convert their existing PNAs 
into the format directed by the department. Many public housing 
agencies already conduct physical needs assessments, yet some 
will incur additional costs to input this information into 
HUD's new system. In its report to the Committee, HUD 
acknowledged that the costs associated with the PNA could be a 
burden for PHAs that lack the flexibility to absorb this 
initiative, and that small PHAs in particular will have a 
greater burden because they were not previously required to 
perform a PNA.
    Given the multiple concerns, the Committee directs the 
department to continue to evaluate the PNA proposed rule and to 
expand on its 2014 report to the Committees, which shall be 
transmitted to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations by March 2, 2015. This report should at a 
minimum: assess how the specific aspects of the PNA tool 
compare to PNAs utilized by HUD's Office of Multi-Family 
Housing, and by unassisted housing managed by PHAs; review if 
all data sought by the proposed PNA are necessary or if 
simplification of the tool makes sense from an oversight and 
management perspective; reflect a department-wide effort to 
identify similar data collection requirements on PHAs to ensure 
no duplication or overlapping of requirements; and determine if 
the objectives of the PNA can be achieved by alternative means 
such as, but not limited to, collection as part of HUD's Line 
of Credit Control System, or the acceptance of multiple 
formats.
    ROSS Program Oversight.--In August 2013, GAO issued a 
report on a variety of HUD self-sufficiency programs, including 
the ROSS program. The report recommended that HUD develop and 
implement a strategy to analyze ROSS participation and outcome 
data. HUD disagreed with the recommendation, citing various 
challenges to doing such analysis, including the variety of 
services that are funded through the program. The Committee 
agrees with GAO that analysis of program outcomes is critical 
to assessing the effectiveness of programs, and directs HUD to 
develop a strategy for collecting and analyzing such data in a 
way that is appropriate for the design of the program. The 
Committee directs HUD to report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations on how HUD is responding to GAO's 
recommendations on oversight of the Family Self-Sufficiency 
program within 90 days of enactment of this act. This report 
should include a strategy for how it will improve its analysis 
of ROSS program outcomes.
    Jobs-Plus.--The Committee has included up to $15,000,000 to 
continue the Jobs-Plus Initiative. Like last year, the 
Secretary also has authority to set aside a portion of ROSS 
funding for the services component of this initiative. Jobs-
Plus is based on a demonstration the Department began in 1998 
that combined employment-related services and activities, 
financial incentives to work, and community support. The data 
showed that, on average, compared to other public housing 
residents, those in the program earned an additional $1,300 per 
year from 2000-2006. The Committee supports HUD's efforts to 
assist public housing residents in finding employment and 
achieving greater economic self-sufficiency.
    The Committee understands that HUD is working with other 
Federal and local partners to design a program that reflects 
changes in public housing since the time of the demonstration, 
and incorporates lessons learned from similar initiatives 
undertaken by housing authorities in recent years. The 
Committee encourages HUD to continue to collaborate with 
partners, but also expects that HUD will complete the program 
design this fall and be able to award funding to PHAs quickly 
in fiscal year 2015.
    Literacy Programs.--The Committee notes the importance of 
education and financial literacy in helping families improve 
life skills and increase their economic opportunities. An 
evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] Program 
conducted by HUD found that families that exited the program 
before graduation had less education than program graduates. 
Increasing educational and financial literacy services for 
public housing residents offers an opportunity to increase the 
success of participants in FSS and other employment programs. 
The Committee encourages HUD to work with national community-
based literacy organizations to identify models that 
successfully incorporate adult literacy programs into HUD 
sponsored housing initiatives. Successful models should link 
these programs to job readiness and post secondary transition 
initiatives, which will help adults with low literacy skills 
become more financially literate and gain the skills necessary 
to make informed decisions about the use and management of 
money. HUD should develop and share best practices with PHAs 
and other housing providers to expand services to adult 
learners.

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2014....................................  $4,400,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................   4,600,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,475,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for the payment of operating 
subsidies to approximately 3,100 public housing authorities 
(except Indian housing authorities) with a total of 
approximately 1.2 million units under management in order to 
augment rent payments by residents in order to provide 
sufficient revenues to meet reasonable operating costs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,475,000,000 
for the public housing operating fund, which is $125,000,000 
less than the budget request and $75,000,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    The Committee has included provisions providing PHAs with 
increased flexibility to move funds between their capital and 
operating funds, as well as giving them the ability to 
establish capital reserves. The Committee notes that many PHAs 
have taken steps to achieve operational savings by improving 
energy efficiency or otherwise reducing expenses. The Committee 
wants to reward such efforts by providing PHAs with the ability 
to reinvest such savings in their properties.
    In addition to providing flexibility with its funding, the 
Committee also recognizes that PHAs face administrative and 
regulatory burdens. As part of the fiscal year 2014 
appropriations bill, the Department was directed to report to 
the Committee on regulations that need to be updated and 
streamlined. While the Committee anticipates the report's 
delivery later this year, it reiterates support for regulatory 
and administrative relief that result in cost savings, while 
still maintaining effective and meaningful oversight.

                          CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $90,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     120,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      90,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative provides competitive 
grants to transform impoverished neighborhoods into 
functioning, sustainable, mixed-income neighborhoods with co-
location of appropriate services, schools, public assets, 
transportation options, and access to jobs or job training. The 
goal of the program is to demonstrate that concentrated and 
coordinated neighborhood investments from multiple sources can 
transform a distressed neighborhood and improve the quality of 
life of residents.
    Choice Neighborhoods grants fund the preservation, 
rehabilitation, and transformation of public and HUD-assisted 
housing as well as their neighborhoods. The program builds on 
the successes of public housing transformation under HOPE VI 
with a broader approach to concentrated poverty. Grantees 
include public housing authorities, tribes, local governments, 
and nonprofit organizations. For-profit developers may also 
apply in partnership with another eligible grantee. Grant funds 
can be used for resident and community services, community 
development and affordable housing activities in surrounding 
communities. Grantees undertake comprehensive local planning 
with input from residents and the community. A strong emphasis 
is placed on local community planning for school and 
educational improvements, including early childhood 
initiatives.
    The Department also places a strong emphasis on 
coordination with other Federal agencies, notably the 
Departments of Education, Labor, Transportation, Health and 
Human Services, and Justice, to leverage additional resources. 
Where possible, the program is coordinated with the Department 
of Education's Promise Neighborhoods Initiative.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $90,000,000 
for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. This amount is equal 
to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $30,000,000 less than 
the budget request. Choice Neighborhoods seeks to build on the 
HOPE VI program by expanding the types of eligible grantees and 
allowing funding to be used on HUD-owned or assisted housing, 
as well as the surrounding community. However, the Committee 
notes that the work to replace distressed public housing is far 
from complete. Therefore, the Committee has included language 
that stipulates that not less than $55,000,000 of the funding 
provided shall be awarded to projects where public housing 
authorities are the lead applicant. The Committee has also 
included the authority to recapture funding remaining from 
completed projects. As a result, there will be an estimated 
$5,300,000 in additional resources available for the program.
    Choice Neighborhoods is part of a broader Administration 
initiative, Promise Zones, which is focused on investing in 
designated high poverty neighborhoods. Under the proposal, HUD 
investments will be coordinated with resources from other 
agencies, such as the Departments of Education and Justice, and 
targeted to select neighborhoods to increase their impact. The 
Committee supports this initiative and its focus on distressed 
neighborhoods. At the same time, the goal of Choice 
Neighborhoods is to replace distressed housing as a way to 
improve communities and the lives of residents. Therefore, HUD 
should not limit applicants to a narrowly defined set of 
neighborhoods since it may prevent the replacement of eligible 
and worthy public or assisted housing projects that are outside 
such designated neighborhoods from competing for funding.
    Inherent in the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative is the 
understanding that community transformation requires more than 
replacing housing. The creation of vibrant, sustainable 
communities also requires greater access to transportation, 
jobs and services that will increase opportunities for 
community residents. However, HUD funding cannot support all of 
these activities. The Committee has been encouraged by the 
ability of Choice Neighborhood grantees to leverage significant 
resources with their grant awards. Grantees have leveraged over 
$2,000,000,000 in other public and private resources with the 
$231,000,000 in Choice Neighborhoods funding they have received 
to date. Grantees have begun replacing affordable housing and 
making other community improvements, and when projects are 
complete, needed affordable housing units will be created or 
preserved.
    The Committee continues to emphasize the importance of 
integrating services for residents into Choice Neighborhood 
projects, which will help to ensure that the goal of improving 
the lives of residents can be met. In addition, the Committee 
urges HUD to identify successful partnership strategies that 
can not only be utilized by future Choice Neighborhood 
grantees, but can also serve as models for traditional public 
housing and HUD-assisted housing program providers that want to 
improve services for their residents.

                        FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $75,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      75,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      75,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] program provides funding 
to help Housing Choice Voucher, project-based section 8, and 
Public Housing residents achieve self-sufficiency and economic 
independence. The FSS program is designed to provide service 
coordination through community partnerships that link residents 
with employment assistance, job training, child care, 
transportation, financial literacy, and other supportive 
services. The funding will be allocated through one competition 
to eligible Public Housing Authorities [PHAs] to support 
service coordinators who will serve both public housing and 
vouchers residents.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,000,000 
for the Family Self-Sufficiency program in fiscal year 2015, an 
amount equal to both the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and the 
President's request.
    The Committee strongly supports the FSS program, which 
helps provide public housing and section 8 residents with the 
tools to improve their lives and achieve self-sufficiency. The 
Committee also supports the idea of expanding FSS to residents 
receiving project-based rental assistance. At the same time, 
the Committee recognizes that expanding the number of entities 
eligible for service coordinator funding without increasing the 
resources available for the program could jeopardize existing 
FSS programs. Therefore, the Committee is allowing PBRA 
residents to participate in the program and save increased 
earnings in an escrow account, but it is not allowing PBRA 
project owners to compete for service coordinator funding. The 
Committee is aware of organizations that may be willing to 
partner with project owners to provide or coordinate services 
for PBRA residents, and hopes that HUD will work to identify 
and facilitate such partnership opportunities.
    As HUD works to streamline and expand the program, the 
Committee also expects HUD to identify best practices in the 
field that are successfully improving outcomes for residents. 
The Committee encourages HUD to consider best practices for how 
to increase participation, improve alignment between eligible 
uses of funding and milestones, and incorporate financial 
education into the program design.
    FSS and Youth.--The Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] program 
provides participants with case management, as well as the 
ability to save increased earnings, so that residents can 
increase self-sufficiency. The Committee wants to test the 
effectiveness of pairing the FSS program with existing Family 
Unification Program [FUP] vouchers for youth. FUP vouchers are 
available to families in the child welfare system, including 
youth aging out of foster care that are at risk of 
homelessness. The vouchers provide homeless youth with the 
housing stability they need to improve their lives through 
education or job training; goals that align with those of the 
FSS program.
    Unfortunately, current program rules make the FUP and FSS 
programs incompatible; for example the programs have different 
time requirements. By providing the Secretary with the 
flexibility to modify the FUP program for youth, the Committee 
hopes that it will increase opportunities to offer youth the 
support they need to achieve self-sufficiency. The Committee 
permits all PHAs with both FUP and FSS programs to participate, 
so long as PHAs can demonstrate partnerships with public child 
welfare agencies, the capacity to serve youth, success with 
serving existing FSS participants, and partnerships with other 
youth-serving organizations. The Secretary is directed to 
monitor the program and report on lessons learned from it.
    Program Data Collection and Analysis.--In August 2013, GAO 
released a report titled, Rental Housing Assistance: HUD Data 
on Self-Sufficiency Programs Should Be Improved. While the 
report noted positive outcomes identified with the FSS program, 
it also found that HUD lacked quality data with which to 
monitor and analyze the program. The Committee agrees with 
GAO's recommendations that HUD needs to provide clear guidance 
to FSS grantees on what data should be reported, which HUD 
should monitor to ensure that it is accurate and complete. 
Accurate data are critical to evaluate the program's 
effectiveness and recommend best practices to improve outcomes 
for participants. The Committee directs HUD to report on how it 
is satisfying the recommendations of GAO's report within 90 
days of enactment of this act. This report should include 
timelines for issuing guidance and the processes it will put in 
place to monitor data.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $650,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     650,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     650,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account funds the Native American Housing Block Grant 
Program, as authorized under title I of the Native American 
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 
[NAHASDA]. This program provides a funding allocation on a 
formula basis to Indian tribes and their tribally designated 
housing entities to help address the housing needs within their 
communities. Under this block grant, Indian tribes use 
performance measures and benchmarks that are consistent with 
the national goals of the program, but can base these measures 
on the needs and priorities established in their own Indian 
housing plan.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $650,000,000 
for the Native American Housing Block Grant Program, of which 
$2,000,000 is set aside for a credit subsidy to support a loan 
level not to exceed $16,530,000 for the Title VI Loan Guarantee 
Program. The recommended level of funding is equal to the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2014 and consistent with the 
budget request.
    The Native American Housing Block Grant Program is a vital 
resource for tribal governments to address the dire housing 
conditions in Indian Country. Access to affordable housing 
remains in a critical state for many tribes across the country. 
Native Americans are twice as likely to live in poverty 
compared to the rest of the Nation. As a result, the housing 
challenges on tribal lands are daunting. According to the U.S. 
Census American Community Survey for 2006-2010, 8.1 percent of 
homes on American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust 
land are overcrowded, compared to 3.1 percent of households 
nationwide. The number of households on reservation lands with 
severe housing costs that spend more than 50 percent of their 
income on housing has risen 46 percent over the past decade.
    The subcommittee staff have conducted site visits to 
several tribes to better understand the challenges to 
developing and maintaining affordable housing in Indian 
Country. The conditions found there were disturbing and the 
magnitude of the need overwhelming. Many tribally designated 
housing entities lack access to financing and credit to develop 
new housing due to the difficulty of financing when trust lands 
are involved. Most development projects take 3 years or longer 
to complete due to a lack of financial resources, issues 
related to land and permitting approvals, and the lack of 
infrastructure in many of these sparse, remote locations.
    In 2012, the Committee directed GAO to conduct an analysis 
of these and other challenges associated with the development 
of affordable housing in Indian Country. GAO found that tribes 
face multiple internal and external challenges in carrying out 
affordable housing activities. Remote locations and a lack of 
basic infrastructure significantly increase the cost of 
development. Tribes also face challenges with differing 
environmental review requirements when scare resources are 
leveraged from a variety of Federal agencies. The Committee 
agrees with GAO that substantial efficiencies and cost-savings 
can be achieved to facilitate infrastructure development by 
creating a coordinated project environmental review process. 
Therefore, the Committee directs HUD to collaborate with the 
Council on Environmental Quality and affected Federal agencies, 
including the Department of the Interior, Agriculture, 
Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Treasury and the 
Environmental Protection Agency, to develop a coordinated 
environmental review process to simplify tribal housing 
development and its related infrastructure needs. The agencies 
shall conduct consultation with tribes and tribally designated 
housing entities and report their conclusions, recommendations 
and any statutory changes that may be necessary to facilitate 
this process to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations by May 1, 2015.
    Technical Assistance.--Limited capacity hinders the ability 
of many tribes to effectively address their housing needs. The 
Committee recommends $4,000,000 for technical assistance 
through a national organization representing Native American 
housing interests as authorized under NAHASDA (25 U.S.C. 4212), 
and up to $2,000,000 for inspections of Indian housing units, 
contract expertise, training, technical assistance, oversight, 
and management.
    The Committee expects HUD to use the technical assistance 
funding provided to a national tribal organization to aid 
tribes with capacity challenges, especially tribes receiving 
small grant awards. The funding should be used for training, 
contract expertise, and other services necessary to improve 
data collection, increase leveraging, and address other needs 
identified by tribes. The Committee expects that any assistance 
provided will reflect the unique needs and culture of Native 
Americans.

                  NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      13,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000 
for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program, which is 
equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $3,000,000 less 
than the budget request. Of the amount provided, $300,000 may 
be for training and technical assistance activities, including 
up to $100,000 for related travel for Hawaii-based HUD 
employees.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account     guaranteed
                                                              loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014..................       $6,000,000   $1,818,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................        8,000,000    1,200,000,000
Committee recommendation..............        6,000,000      714,290,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This program provides access to private financing for 
Indian families, Indian tribes, and their tribally designated 
housing entities that otherwise could not acquire housing 
financing because of the unique status of Indian trust land. 
HUD continues to be the largest single source of financing for 
housing in tribal communities. This program makes it possible 
to promote sustainable reservation communities by providing 
access to financing for higher income Native Americans to 
achieve homeownership within their Native communities. As 
required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account 
includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees 
authorized under this program.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,000,000 in 
program subsidies to support a loan level of $714,290,000. This 
subsidy amount is equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted subsidy 
level and $2,000,000 less than the budget request.

      NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account     guaranteed
                                                              loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014..................         $100,000      $16,130,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................  ...............  ...............
Committee recommendation..............          100,000       16,130,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This program provides access to private financing for 
Native Hawaiians who otherwise could not acquire housing 
finance because of the unique status of the Hawaiian Home Lands 
as trust land. As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 
1990, this account includes the subsidy costs associated with 
the loan guarantees authorized under this program.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000 in 
program subsidies to support a loan level of $16,130,000 which 
is equal to the subsidy and loan levels provided in fiscal year 
2014.

                   Community Planning and Development

          HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $330,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     332,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     330,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA] 
program provides States and localities with resources and 
incentives to devise long-term, comprehensive strategies for 
meeting the housing and supportive service needs of persons 
living with HIV/AIDS and their families.
    Since 1990, by statute, 90 percent of formula-appropriated 
funds are distributed to qualifying States and metropolitan 
areas on the basis of the number of AIDS cases and incidence of 
AIDS reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
by March 31 of the year preceding the fiscal year. The 
remaining 10 percent of funds are awarded through a national 
competition, with priority given to the renewal of funding for 
expiring agreements consistent with appropriations act 
requirements.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $330,000,000 
for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA] 
program. This level of funding is $2,000,000 less than the 
President's budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level. The Committee continues to include language 
requiring HUD to allocate these funds in a manner that 
preserves existing HOPWA programs, to the extent that those 
programs are determined to be meeting the needs of persons with 
HIV/AIDS.
    Legislative Reauthorization Proposal.--The Committee 
recognizes that the HOPWA statute requires an update to the 
formula funding to target limited resources to communities most 
impacted by HIV. The proposal to expand short-term homeless 
prevention services could provide valuable flexibility to 
grantees to stabilize vulnerable, extremely low-income 
individuals and households. The Committee encourages HUD to 
engage with stakeholders on the benefits of a new 
reauthorization proposal that updates the program. HUD should 
work with the respective House and Senate authorization 
committees to enact these and other much needed reforms to the 
program.

                       community development fund

Appropriations, 2014....................................  $3,100,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................   2,870,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,090,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act 
of 1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award 
block grants to units of general local government and States 
for the funding of local community development programs. A wide 
range of physical, economic, and social development activities 
are eligible with spending priorities determined at the local 
level, but the law enumerates general objectives which the 
block grants are designed to fulfill, including adequate 
housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic 
opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate 
income. Grant recipients are required to use at least 70 
percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit 
low- and moderate-income persons.
    Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community 
development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective 
formulas, one of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age 
of housing stock. Of the funds appropriated, 70 percent are 
distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are 
distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting 
designated amounts for set-asides for insular areas and Indian 
CDBG.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,090,000,000 
for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2015. This 
level is $220,000,000 more than the budget request and 
$10,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    The Committee has provided $3,020,000,000 for Community 
Development Block Grants. The recommended amount is 
$220,000,000 more than the budget request and $10,000,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. CDBG funding provides 
States and entitlement communities with resources that allow 
them to undertake a wide range of community development 
activities, including public infrastructure improvements, 
housing rehabilitation and construction, job creation and 
retention, and public services that primarily benefit low and 
moderate income persons.
    The flexibility associated with CDBG enables State and 
local governments to tailor solutions to effectively meet the 
unique needs of their communities. The investments made through 
CDBG help support infrastructure, small businesses, housing and 
services important to strong communities. The impact of these 
investments reverberates through communities, leveraging 
additional sources of funding and creating thousands of jobs.
    To ensure the program remains flexible, but also 
accountable and transparent, the Committee continues a 
provision in bill language first added in fiscal year 2014 that 
prohibits any community from selling its CDBG award to another 
community. In addition, the Committee has added a new 
requirement that any funding provided to a for-profit entity 
for an economic development project funded under this bill 
undergo appropriate underwriting. The Committee has included 
these provisions to address concerns raised about how program 
dollars have been used and mitigate risks associated with it.
    The Committee includes $70,000,000 for grants to Indian 
tribes for essential economic and community development 
activities which is equal to the budget request and the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level.
    Mold Remediation and Prevention.--The Committee includes 
$10,000,000 to fund grants for mold remediation and prevention 
in Native American housing. This level is equal to the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level. The funding will be awarded to 
grantees through a single national competition to ensure that 
grants are awarded to tribes with greatest need.
    In administering this funding and working to address mold 
in Native American housing, the Committee expects the Office of 
Native American Programs to work with the Office of Lead Hazard 
Control and Healthy Homes to ensure Native American communities 
have the information and assistance they need to effectively 
address this serious issue.
    The Committee wants to monitor the success of these funds 
in addressing the mold problem. Therefore, the Committee 
directs HUD to report on the number of units remediated and any 
other pertinent information. This information should be 
provided to the Committee as part of annual congressional 
justifications or upon request.

         COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account     guaranteed
                                                              loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014..................       $3,000,000     $150,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................  ...............      500,000,000
Committee recommendation..............  ...............      500,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal 
loan guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and 
nonentitlement communities to cover the costs of acquiring real 
property, rehabilitation of publicly owned real property, 
housing rehabilitation, and other economic development 
activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes the President's 
proposal to make this a fee-based program, and provides no 
appropriation. However, the fee-based structure recommended by 
the Committee will support a loan level guarantee of 
$500,000,000 for the section 108 loan guarantees account for 
fiscal year 2015. This guaranteed loan level is $350,000,000 
more than the fiscal year 2014 level and equal to the 
President's request.
    This program enables CDBG recipients to use their CDBG 
dollars to leverage financing for economic development 
projects, community facilities, and housing rehabilitation 
programs. Communities are allowed to borrow up to five times 
their most recent CDBG allocation.
    For several years, the administration has been proposing to 
make this a fee-based program. In fiscal year 2014, the 
Committee accepted this proposal, but since HUD had not begun 
the rulemaking process, it provided both a subsidy and the 
authority to raise fees so that HUD could transition the 
program to the new funding structure without disrupting it. The 
Committee expected HUD to move quickly to commence the 
rulemaking process and clearly communicate program costs and 
requirements to communities, yet more than halfway through the 
fiscal year, the rulemaking process has not begun and 
communities are left wondering how the program will operate. 
The Committee expects HUD to ensure that a financing structure 
is in place by the beginning of the fiscal year to ensure that 
this important program remains available to communities. In 
addition, HUD must provide communities with information and any 
technical assistance they may need to successfully utilize the 
program.

                  HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2014....................................  $1,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     950,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     950,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $950,000,000 
for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This amount is 
$50,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The 
amount is the same as the budget request, but the budget also 
proposes to fund a $10,000,000 Self-Help and Assisted 
Homeownership Program [SHOP] program out of this account, which 
the Committee has rejected.
    The bill includes several provisions to improve the program 
that were requested in the budget, including allowing statewide 
nonprofits to be designated as Community Housing Development 
Organizations. This is expected to help States that are less 
populous, and as a result, have more organizations that serve 
the entire State. The Committee recommendation also includes a 
provision that will create an exception to the 30-day eviction 
notice in instances where a tenant poses a threat. Similar 
exceptions are included in other housing assistance programs.

        SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $50,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................      50,000,000

\1\The budget request shifts funding for SHOP activities to the HOME 
program and creates a new $20,000,000 Capacity Building program for the 
section 4 activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity 
Program is comprised of the Self-Help Homeownership Program 
[SHOP], which assists low-income homebuyers willing to 
contribute ``sweat equity'' toward the construction of their 
houses. These funds increase nonprofit organizations' ability 
to leverage funds from other sources. This account also 
includes funding for the Capacity Building for Community 
Development and Affordable Housing Program, as well as 
assistance to rural communities as authorized under sections 
6301 through 6305 of Public Law 110-246. These programs help to 
develop the capacity of nonprofit community development 
organizations to carry out community development and affordable 
housing projects.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Self-Help and 
Assisted Homeownership Program, which is equal to the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level. The budget request would shift a 
portion of the funding for these activities to the HOME 
program, and transition the section 4 program into a new 
Capacity Building program. The Committee recommendation 
includes $10,000,000 for SHOP, as authorized under section 11 
of the Housing Opportunity Extension Act of 1996; $35,000,000 
for capacity building as authorized by section 4 of the HUD 
Demonstration Act of 1993; and $5,000,000 to carry out capacity 
building activities in rural communities. The Committee notes 
that funding for technical assistance is being provided under 
the Transformation Initiative and directs funds available for 
section 4 to be used solely for capacity building activities.
    Energy Star.--The Committee is concerned that the Energy 
Star requirements in the SHOP Notice of Funding Availability 
[NOFA] while well-intentioned may increase costs in a time that 
limited resources should be targeted to producing homes that 
comply with local building and safety codes. The Department is 
directed to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations within 120 days of enactment of this act that 
evaluates: (1) if the Energy Star requirement in this program's 
NOFA are consistent with Energy Star requirements across HUD 
programs; and (2) if this requirement is a barrier to 
participation, especially in rural areas, considering factors 
such as the cost of certifications, access to Home Energy 
Raters or certified HVAC contractors, or the mortgage now 
exceeding USDA's Area Loan Limits.

                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2014....................................  $2,105,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................   2,406,400,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,145,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Homeless Assistance Grants Program provides funding to 
break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons 
and families to permanent housing. This is done by providing 
rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and 
permanent housing, prevention, rapid re-housing, and supportive 
services to homeless persons and families or those at risk of 
homelessness. The emergency solutions grant program is a 
formula grant program, while the Continuum of Care and Rural 
Housing Stability Programs are competitive grants. Homeless 
assistance grants provide Federal support to one of the 
Nation's most vulnerable populations. These grants assist 
localities in addressing the housing and service needs of a 
wide variety of homeless populations while developing 
coordinated Continuum of Care [CoC] systems that ensure the 
support necessary to help those who are homeless to attain 
housing and move toward self-sufficiency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,145,000,000 
for Homeless Assistance Grants in fiscal year 2015. This amount 
is $261,400,000 less than the President's request, and 
$40,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    As part of the Committee recommendation, at least 
$1,848,000,000 will support the Continuum of Care Program, 
including the renewal of existing projects, and the Rural 
Housing Stability Assistance Program. Based on the renewal 
burden, HUD may also support planning and other activities 
authorized by the HEARTH Act. The recommendation also includes 
at least $250,000,000 for the emergency solutions grants 
program [ESG].
    Given the current fiscal constraints, the Committee is not 
able to provide the funding requested for new permanent 
supportive housing. However, the Committee remains committed to 
supporting the goals outlined in the Federal Strategic Plan to 
Prevent and End Homelessness, including the goal to end chronic 
homelessness. The Committee supports HUD's efforts to leverage 
existing housing resources, such as section 8 vouchers, to 
serve the homeless. The Committee also supports replacing 
existing, underperforming projects with new permanent 
supportive housing projects. Therefore, if funds remain 
available in this account after meeting renewal demands and 
funding ESG, HUD may use it for new projects, provided that 
such projects are targeted to areas with the greatest need, as 
measured by homeless data.
    Youth Homelessness.--The Committee is concerned about the 
number of youth experiencing homelessness. HUD has provided 
guidance to communities about how to better count homeless 
youth as part of the point-in-time count, and stressed the 
importance of serving youth as part of the annual Continuum of 
Care competition. There is still more to be done. The Committee 
expects HUD to ensure that communities have youth-appropriate 
housing, through technical assistance and dissemination of best 
practices. In addition, HUD should do more to emphasize the 
importance of youth-appropriate housing as part of the annual 
Continuum of Care competition.
    Housing for Domestic Violence Survivors.--The Committee 
knows that many individuals experiencing homelessness are also 
survivors of domestic violence. Ensuring that they have a safe 
place to live is a critical role of the homeless system. The 
Committee is aware that as continuums eliminate or replace 
underperforming homeless projects, housing serving those 
impacted by domestic violence may be lost. The Committee 
supports the efforts of communities to ensure homeless projects 
being funded demonstrate positive housing outcomes for those 
they serve. At the same time, it is critical to ensure that the 
unique housing needs of survivors of domestic violence are met. 
The Committee urges HUD to work with communities to help ensure 
they have appropriate housing available for domestic violence 
survivors. This may include replacing an underperforming 
project specific to survivors of domestic violence with a 
project that serves the same purpose, but with better results.
    Annual Homeless Assessment Report.--AHAR stems from 
congressional directives begun in 2001 that charged the 
Department with collecting homeless data through the 
implementation of a new Homeless Management Information System 
[HMIS]. AHAR includes HMIS data, information provided by 
Continuums of Care, and a count of sheltered and unsheltered 
persons from one night in January of each year. The Committee 
is encouraged that Federal agencies are sharing homeless data 
and working towards using HMIS as a platform for gathering 
information in other Federal programs. Having consistent 
national data will allow the Federal Government to better 
understand the needs of the homeless and better align Federal 
services to meet these needs. To support continued data 
collection and AHAR, the Committee has included $7,000,000 for 
data analysis and technical assistance.
    The Committee requests that HUD submit the AHAR report by 
August 29, 2015. The Committee further hopes that HUD's efforts 
to increase participation in the HMIS effort will lead to 
improved information about and understanding of the Nation's 
homeless.
    Renewal Costs.--The Committee directs HUD to continue to 
include 5-year projections of the costs of renewing existing 
projects as part of the fiscal year 2016 budget justification. 
This should include estimated costs of renewing permanent 
supportive housing.

                            Housing Programs

                    PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2014\1\.................................  $9,916,628,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................   9,746,000,000
Committee recommendation\1\.............................   9,746,000,000

\1\Includes an advance appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The section 8 project-based rental assistance [PBRA] 
program supports an estimated 17,400 contracts with private 
owners of multifamily housing. Through this program, HUD and 
private sector partners support the preservation of safe, 
stable and sanitary housing for more than 1.2 million low-
income Americans. Without PBRA, many affordable housing 
projects would convert to market rates with large rent 
increases that current tenants would be unable to afford.
    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$9,746,000,000 for the annual renewal of project-based 
contracts, of which up to $210,000,000 is for the cost of 
contract administrators. The recommended level of funding is 
$170,628,000 less than the amount provided in fiscal year 2014 
and is equal to the budget request.
    The Committee reluctantly concurs with the administration's 
proposal to shift the payment of contracts to a calendar year 
basis. This funding cycle is consistent with the practices for 
the tenant-based rental assistance and public housing programs. 
However, it is a departure from the long-standing practice that 
all project-based contracts should receive a full 12 months of 
financing from the contract renewal date to maintain investor 
confidence and support for the program. The Committee 
recognizes that this strategy temporarily defers the need for 
large budgetary increases to fiscal year 2016. Unfortunately, 
due to the budget constraints for fiscal year 2015, the 
Committee accepts this approach as the best option for 
preserving HUD's housing assistance programs. While the Office 
of Multifamily Housing is implementing many cost-savings 
measures, the revenue that such steps are expected to generate 
in the next fiscal year will be minimal compared to PBRA's 
funding requirements. The Committee urges the Department to 
explore other opportunities to reduce program costs, while 
encouraging the Department to manage the funding provided to 
ensure an uninterrupted flow of funds to support this critical 
housing resource.
    Performance-Based Contract Administrators.--Performance-
based contract administrators [PBCAs] are typically public 
housing authorities or State housing finance agencies. They are 
responsible for conducting on-site management reviews of 
assisted properties; adjusting contract rents; and reviewing, 
processing, and paying monthly vouchers submitted by owners. 
The Committee notes that PBCAs are integral to the Department's 
efforts to be more effective and efficient in the oversight and 
monitoring of this program. The Committee is also aware of 
ongoing litigation that will affect the future of these 
entities and will continue to monitor developments. The 
Committee believes that fair and open competition is the best 
way to ensure that the taxpayer receives the greatest benefit 
for the costs incurred. The Department is directed to ensure 
that the PBCA selection process be, to the greatest extent 
legally permissible, full, open, and fair.
    Oversight of Property Owners.--The Committee places a 
priority on providing access to safe, sanitary, and affordable 
housing to those most in need. If owners fail to maintain their 
properties in accordance with HUD standards, they should be 
held accountable. While there is a tension between holding 
property owners responsible and ensuring tenants don't lose 
their housing, HUD has tools at its disposal to hold owners 
accountable without putting tenants at risk.
    HUD has recently taken important steps to increase its 
oversight of multifamily properties. It launched the Sustaining 
Our Investments Initiative, which is designed to ensure 
consistent guidance to all project owners and to provide 
clarity on how non-compliance will be addressed. To date, HUD 
has completed a risk rating assessment for all PBRA properties 
and is assigning Project Managers to address performance 
problems at troubled assets. HUD also uses inspections by the 
Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC] to identify physical and 
financial issues. Properties with physical inspection scores 
below 30 are referred to the Departmental Enforcement Center 
[DEC] for further intervention. DEC may pursue civil penalties 
or other enforcement measures. Since fiscal year 2009, there 
has been a 15 percent decrease in the number of properties 
receiving REAC scores lower than 30. This indicates that HUD's 
oversight initiatives are reducing the number of troubled 
properties in this important affordable housing program.
    To ensure continued attention to this issue, the Committee 
recommendation includes a general provision that requires HUD 
to take specific steps to ensure that physical deficiencies in 
properties are quickly addressed, and requires the Secretary to 
take explicit actions if the owner fails to maintain them. 
These actions include imposing civil money penalties, working 
to secure a different owner for the property, or transferring 
the section 8 contract to another the property. The Committee 
wants to preserve critical project-based section 8 contracts, 
and believes this goal can be achieved while holding property 
owners accountable for their actions.
    The Committee expects HUD to continue to move quickly to 
identify problem properties and owners and find an appropriate 
remedy. The Committee directs HUD to provide semi-annual 
reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on 
the number of projects that receive multiple exigent health and 
safety violations or physical inspection scores below 30. HUD 
shall also identify the actions taken to address safety 
concerns, including the frequency with which civil money 
penalties are imposed, contracts are transferred to another 
property, or ownership is transferred. The Committee expects 
that with increased enforcement the number of troubled 
properties will continue to be reduced.

                        HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $383,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     440,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     420,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account funds housing for the elderly under section 
202 of the Housing Act of 1959. Under this program, the 
Department provides capital grants to eligible entities for the 
acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing for 
seniors, and provides project-based rental assistance contracts 
[PRAC] to support operational costs for such units. Tenants 
living in section 202 supportive housing units can access a 
variety of community-based services to keep living 
independently in the community and age in place.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The section 202 program provides nearly 400,000 federally 
assisted, privately owned affordable housing units for the 
elderly. The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$420,000,000 for the section 202 program. This level is 
$36,500,000 more than the level provided in fiscal year 2014 
and $20,000,000 less than the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation includes $350,000,000 to fully fund all annual 
project-rental assistance contract renewals and amendments, and 
$70,000,000 for service coordinators and the continuation of 
existing congregate service grants. Due to very tight budget 
constraints, no funds are provided to supplement the fiscal 
year 2014 investment in an elderly project rental assistance 
demonstration. The combination of resources from fiscal year 
2014 appropriations, residual receipts, collections, and other 
unobligated balances are sufficient to administer a long-term 
demonstration of how housing plus supportive services can delay 
the need for more costly assisted living or nursing home care.

                 HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $126,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     160,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     135,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for housing for the persons 
with disabilities under section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzales 
National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. Traditionally, the 
section 811 program provided capital grants to eligible 
entities for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction 
of housing for persons with disabilities, as well as rental 
assistance to support operational costs. Since fiscal year 
2012, HUD has transitioned to expanding capacity by providing 
project rental assistance to State housing financing agencies 
or other appropriate entities that act in partnership with 
State health and human service agencies to provide supportive 
services as authorized by the Frank Melville Supportive Housing 
Investment Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-374).

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $135,000,000 
for the section 811 program. This level is $25,000,000 less 
than the budget request and is $9,000,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level. This level of funding supports all 
PRAC renewals and amendments. Should HUD identify any residual 
receipts, or recaptures of other unobligated balances in the 
account, the Secretary shall direct such resources to 
supplement the recent demonstration competition for project 
rental assistance to State housing finance agencies.

                     HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $45,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      60,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      49,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Housing Counseling Assistance Program provides 
comprehensive housing counseling services to eligible 
homeowners and tenants through grants to nonprofit 
intermediaries, State government entities, and other local and 
national agencies. Eligible counseling activities include pre- 
and post-purchase education, personal financial management, 
reverse mortgage product education, foreclosure prevention, 
mitigation, and rental counseling.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $49,000,000 
for the Housing Counseling Assistance program, which is 
$11,000,000 less than the budget request and $4,000,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The funds provided 
will help individuals and families across the country make 
better-informed housing decisions. Specifically, it will 
support additional competitive counseling grants and training 
activities. In addition, the administrative contract support 
funding includes increased resources for financial audits and 
technical assistance, as well as support for the Homeowners 
Armed With Knowledge program.
    The Committee has included language requiring HUD to 
obligate counseling grants within 180 days of enactment of this 
act. The Committee has extended the award deadline from 120 to 
180 days to provide sufficient time for counseling agencies to 
respond to HUD's funding notice, while also ensuring grantees 
receive funding in a timely manner. The bill also includes 
language permitting HUD to publish multiyear NOFAs, contingent 
on annual appropriations, which should result in administrative 
savings for HUD and grantees. Other HUD programs, such as the 
Fair Housing Initiatives Program and Housing for the Elderly, 
have similar multiyear authority.

                       RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $21,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      28,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides amendment funding for housing 
assisted under a variety of HUD housing programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,000,000 
for HUD-assisted, State-aided, noninsured rental housing 
projects, consistent with the budget request. This amount is 
$7,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and 
equal to the budget request. The Committee notes that language 
is included in the bill that will allow the conversion of these 
projects to section 8, at no additional cost. The Committee 
hopes that the conversion of these projects, through the Rental 
Assistance Demonstration, will lead to the eventual elimination 
of these outdated programs.

            PAYMENT TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2014....................................      $7,530,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 
Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 
Improvement Act of 2000, authorizes the Secretary to establish 
Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 
the construction, design, and performance of manufactured 
homes. All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal 
standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs 
of administering the act.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support the 
manufactured housing standards programs, of which the full 
amount of $10,000,000 is expected to be derived from fees 
collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust 
Fund account. No direct appropriation is provided. The total 
amount recommended is equal to the budget request and 
$2,470,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    The Committee continues language allowing the Department to 
collect fees from program participants for the dispute 
resolution and installment programs mandated by the 
Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. These fees are to 
be deposited into the Trust Fund and may be used to support the 
manufactured housing standards programs subject to the overall 
cap placed on the account. The Committee expects the Department 
to move forward with this authority.
    The Committee notes that carryover in the program, along 
with HUD's proposed rule to raise label fees, will allow HUD to 
continue its current activities. However, the Committee 
recognizes that manufactured housing production has declined 
substantially since peak industry production in 1998, and 
continues to decline due to a variety of factors. Expenditures 
supporting the programs should reflect and correspond with this 
decline, which has specifically reduced the number of 
inspections and inspection hours required for new units.
    It is the Committee's understanding that HUD is defining 
some recreational vehicles [RVs] as ``manufactured homes.'' RVs 
play an important role in providing transportation and 
temporary living quarters for travel, recreation and camping. 
The RV industry supports more than 12,000 businesses with 
combined annual revenues of more than $37,500,000,000. The 
Committee is concerned that advances in RV technology may 
require HUD to update its definition of what constitutes a 
recreational vehicle. The Committee encourages HUD to review 
its definition of what constitutes a recreational vehicle and 
consider updating the definition through an open, transparent 
and inclusive process. Manufactured housing plays an important 
role in providing housing to low- and moderate-income families. 
The Committee believes that any RV definition update should be 
construed in such a way that it does not negatively impact the 
manufactured housing industry.

                     Federal Housing Administration

               mutual mortgage insurance program account

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on       Limitation on      Administrative
                                                         direct loans      guaranteed loans    contract expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014................................         $20,000,000    $400,000,000,000        $127,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...............................          20,000,000     400,000,000,000         170,000,000
Committee recommendation............................          20,000,000     400,000,000,000         145,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Limitation on       Limitation on
                                     direct loans      guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014............         $20,000,000     $30,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...........          20,000,000      30,000,000,000
Committee recommendation........          20,000,000      30,000,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has included the following amounts for the 
Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program account: a limitation on 
guaranteed loans of $400,000,000,000, a limitation on direct 
loans of $20,000,000, and $145,000,000 for administrative 
contract expenses.
    For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends 
$30,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans and a 
limitation on direct loans of $20,000,000.
    The bill also includes a rescission of $10,000,000 
previously provided to support programs with positive credit 
subsidies; those programs are no longer issuing new 
commitments, so the funding is not needed.
    Following the housing crisis, FHA's role in the housing 
market expanded considerably, as it played the countercyclical 
role for which it was designed. While FHA played a critical 
role in ensuring a functioning housing finance market during 
the crisis, its expanded role came with additional risk. As a 
result of its increased role in the market, as well as poor 
quality loans in its portfolio that were insured under laxer 
requirements, FHA suffered significant losses. This ultimately 
resulted in FHA seeking $1,700,000,000 from Treasury at the end 
of fiscal year 2013 to cover expected losses--the first time 
FHA needed to draw on taxpayer funding in its history.
    Beginning in 2009, this administration implemented policies 
to tighten lending standards and increase premiums. These 
changes have improved the quality of its loans and increased 
the solvency of the MMI Fund. As a result of the increased fees 
and improvements in its loss mitigation strategies, the MMI 
Fund is not expected to require any additional funding from 
Treasury, and it is projected to reach the 2 percent capital 
requirement in 2016, a year earlier than projected in the 2012 
actuarial review. While the Committee is pleased that the 
condition of the fund is improving, it expects HUD to remain 
focused on the fund's financial health.
    Administrative Fee.--The Committee has provided the 
authority for HUD to charge a fee, as requested, to help offset 
FHA's administrative costs, for which the Committee has 
provided $145,000,000. The increased resources will allow HUD 
to enhance its oversight and further mitigate risk to the MMI 
Fund. Of the amount provided, the Committee has included 
$8,000,000, as requested, for improvements to risk modeling and 
analytics. In addition, funding is included to increase quality 
control reviews, consistent with recommendations from HUD's 
Office of Inspector General. Since the level recommended is 
lower than the request, the Committee directs HUD to submit a 
detailed plan for how it will allocate the funding provided 
within 30 days of enactment of this act.
    The Committee supports the goal of improving FHA's quality 
control efforts and has included resources to do so; however, 
it also recognizes that FHA needs to provide clear and 
consistent guidance to lenders so that they can better assess 
risk associated with the mortgages they originate. In May, HUD 
issued a ``Blueprint for Access'', which includes several steps 
intended to provide industry with additional clarity, as well 
as target completion dates for each item. The Committee 
stresses the importance of meeting the stated deadlines and 
working with industry to ensure that its guidance and oversight 
are fair and transparent.
    HAWK.--The President's budget included a new initiative 
called Homeowners Armed With Knowledge [HAWK]. The goal of the 
program is to increase access to credit for borrowers, 
especially first-time homeowners, who are currently locked out 
of the market due to tight lending standards. By providing 
incentives for homebuyers to obtain housing counseling, which 
has a track record of reducing the risk of default, FHA expects 
lenders will be more willing to make loans to these borrowers. 
In May, HUD announced further details of the proposal and asked 
for public comments on how the program and its incentives 
should be structured. The Committee is hopeful that HAWK can 
provide a way to responsibly expand homeownership 
opportunities. While the Committee supports the initiative, a 
separate appropriation is not included for it. Instead, HUD 
should use existing resources to implement the program.
    HECM.--During the fiscal year 2014 budget process, problems 
with the design of the HECM program were cited as a significant 
source of losses to the MMI Fund. In response to concerns about 
the program's cost, Congress passed the Reverse Mortgage 
Stabilization Act of 2013. With the authority provided in the 
law, HUD has moved to improve the program by requiring 
borrowers taking high draws to use those funds to pay off debt 
obligations and requiring a financial assessment of all HECM 
mortgagors before the loan closes. The Committee expects that 
these changes will help ensure that the program remains 
available for seniors, while reducing the risks associated with 
it.
    Eminent Domain.--The Committee is aware of several local 
governments exploring the idea of partnering with private 
investors and using eminent domain authority to take title to 
certain mortgages--not the underlying real property--and pay 
the mortgage holders ``fair market value.'' The Government and 
investors would then write down the loan principal so that 
distressed homeowners could lower their monthly payments and 
begin to rebuild equity in their homes. With the principal 
reduced the borrower would likely then be able to refinance 
into an FHA loan, which could then be securitized by Government 
National Mortgage Association. Although this concept is still 
in its infancy and no jurisdiction has yet implemented such a 
proposal, the Committee will continue to monitor developments 
in this area, and expects FHA to keep the Committee informed of 
any policies it will propose if such a program is implemented.
    REO Properties.--The Committee directs the Department to 
submit a report within 180 days of enactment of this act to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the costs and 
timeframes involved when the Secretary takes title to real 
property following a foreclosure. This report should identify 
actions that the FHA is taking to reduce such costs or 
timeframes, and how the availability of title insurance 
coverage for satisfied liens which are not released in the 
public record would affect those costs and timeframes.
    Multifamily Housing.--The Committee notes that in April 
2013, HUD began the Multifamily Housing Transformation 
Initiative. In addition to modifying its field structure, the 
initiative focuses on process improvements by expanding its 
``Breaking Ground'' and ``Sustaining our Investments'' 
initiatives to all offices. These programs are designed to 
streamline the application process and quantify portfolio risk, 
which should improve efficiency and allow HUD to better target 
its resources on risky assets. The Committee understands that 
implementing significant staffing and process changes may 
impact program delivery, as staff adjust to new roles and a new 
way of doing their work. HUD must minimize any disruptions in 
processing and oversight of loans by clearly communicating to 
both staff and industry the changes that will occur and 
adjustments that will be necessary as a result of them.

                Government National Mortgage Association

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on
                                                          personnel,
                                     Limitation on     compensation and
                                   guaranteed loans     administrative
                                                           expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2014............    $500,000,000,000         $19,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015...........     500,000,000,000          28,000,000
Committee recommendation........     500,000,000,000          24,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Government National Mortgage Association [Ginnie Mae], 
through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees 
privately issued securities backed by pools of Government-
guaranteed mortgages. Ginnie Mae is a wholly owned corporate 
instrumentality of the United States within the Department. Its 
powers are prescribed generally by title III of the National 
Housing Act, as amended. Ginnie Mae is authorized by section 
306(g) of the act to guarantee the timely payment of principal 
and interest on securities that are based on and backed by a 
trust, or pool, composed of mortgages that are guaranteed and 
insured by the FHA, the Rural Housing Service, or the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. Ginnie Mae's guarantee of 
mortgage-backed securities is backed by the full faith and 
credit of the United States. This account also funds all 
salaries and benefits funding to support Ginnie Mae.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments on 
mortgage-backed securities of $500,000,000,000. This level is 
the same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2014 enacted 
level. The bill allows Ginnie Mae to use $24,000,000 for 
salaries and expenses. This is $4,500,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2014 enacted level and $4,000,000 less than the 
President's request.
    Since the near collapse of the private mortgage market, 
homeowners have relied on Federal programs, such as FHA, to 
purchase or refinance homes. Given that Ginnie Mae serves as a 
secondary market for FHA, its market share has also grown. For 
Ginnie Mae, a more important barometer of its workload than 
volume is the number of issuers participating in the program, 
which has increased by 30 percent since 2008. While all new 
issuers require scrutiny, even more staff time is required for 
non-depository entities, such as private equity and hedge fund 
participants, which are increasing in number. To respond to the 
greater workload and risk associated with the growing number of 
issuers, the Committee has increased funding for Ginnie Mae 
salaries and expenses. The recommended level of funding will 
support additional FTE in the Office of Issuer and Portfolio 
Management and the Office of Enterprise Data and Technology. 
These resources will increase Ginnie Mae's capacity to 
effectively oversee its issuers, including the more complex 
non-depository ones.

                    Policy Development and Research

                        RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $46,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      46,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, 
as amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development to undertake programs of research, 
evaluation, and reports relating to the Department's mission 
and programs. These functions are carried out internally and 
through grants and contracts with industry, nonprofit research 
organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements 
with State and local governments and other Federal agencies. 
The research programs seek ways to improve the efficiency, 
effectiveness, and equity of HUD programs and to identify 
methods to achieve cost reductions. Additionally, this 
appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation and monitoring 
activities and to conduct housing surveys.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $46,000,000 
for research, technology, and community development activities 
in fiscal year 2015. This level is equal to the fiscal year 
2014 enacted level and $4,000,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation will continue to support 
market surveys, such as the American Housing Survey, that are 
integral to HUD's ability to understand its own programs and 
also help enhance public and private entities' knowledge of 
housing conditions in the U.S.
    The Committee also continues language that allows HUD to 
enter into cooperative agreements, which allows the Office of 
Policy Development and Research to partner with other Federal 
agencies, researchers, or foundations on research that will 
inform HUD's understanding of its programs and the people who 
rely on them. This structure reduces duplicative research by 
leveraging existing projects to meet the needs of different 
stakeholders. The Committee encourages HUD to continue to 
maximize this authority.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

                        FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2014\1\.................................     $66,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      71,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      66,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public 
Law 112-25.

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding 
for both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the 
Fair Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP].
    The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local 
agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1968, as amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, 
rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of 
brokerage services. The major objective of the program is to 
assure prompt and effective processing of title VIII complaints 
with appropriate remedies for complaints by State and local 
fair housing agencies.
    The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by 
section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1987, as amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed 
to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to 
public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating 
or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair 
housing opportunities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $66,000,000 
for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity [OFHEO]. 
This amount is $5,000,000 less than the budget request and 
equal to the 2014 enacted level. Of the amounts provided, 
$23,300,000 is for FHAP; $1,800,000 is for the National Fair 
Housing Training Academy; and $40,600,000 is for FHIP. The bill 
also includes $300,000 for the creation, promotion, and 
dissemination of translated materials that support the 
assistance of persons with limited English proficiency.
    The Committee supports the efforts of HUD and its local 
partners to prevent and combat housing discrimination. It is 
clear from HUD's fiscal year 2010 Annual Report on Fair Housing 
that Americans continue to experience housing discrimination, 
most often based on disability and race. The funding provided 
through the FHAP and FHIP programs helps HUD and local agencies 
investigate and work to resolve potential fair housing 
violations.
    Of the recommended amount, at least $29,775,000 is provided 
to maintain the current level of private enforcement initiative 
grants. The level of funding provided for FHAP is consistent 
with the President's budget and reflects a reduction in 
compliant processing due to fewer FHAP grantees, as well as the 
elimination of funding for the Biennial Policy Conference.
    Section 3 Compliance.--The Committee supports HUD's effort 
to ensure that recipients of HUD funding are fulfilling their 
obligations under section 3 of the 1968 Housing Act to provide 
training, contract, and employment opportunities to low- and 
moderate-income people living in the area. The Committee is 
aware that some HUD grantees are finding it difficult to 
quickly resolve compliance issues, despite the fact that the 
core requirements of section 3 are being met. The Committee is 
also concerned that OFHEO does not have clearly stated guidance 
on all issues of noncompliance with section 3, and as a result, 
how to resolve such findings. In resolving issues of 
noncompliance with grantees, specifically grantees that meet 
numeric goals requirements, the Committee expects the 
Department to consider resolutions that will achieve the 
national objective, and are consistent with section 3 
objectives.
    Housing for Individuals with Disabilities.--The Committee 
is concerned about the lack of accessible housing options 
available for individuals with physical disabilities. This 
issue affects both low income individuals with disabilities who 
want to live in the community with their peers rather than in 
congregate housing, and middle class individuals with 
disabilities who wish to either rent or purchase a home. The 
Committee directs HUD to work with the United States Access 
Board and interested disability advocates to consider 
financial, regulatory, and legislative options to help ensure 
that individuals with disabilities have a fair opportunity to 
rent or own accessible housing in their communities. HUD, in 
consultation with the Access Board, shall report to the House 
and Senate Committee on Appropriations on recommended options 
or areas for further study within 180 days of enactment of this 
act.

            Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $110,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     120,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     110,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1992 established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction Act, under which HUD is authorized to make grants to 
States, localities, and Native American tribes to conduct lead-
based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities in 
private, low-income housing. Lead poisoning is a significant 
environmental health hazard, particularly for young children 
and pregnant women, and can result in neurological damage, 
learning disabilities, and impaired growth. The Healthy Homes 
Program, authorized under sections 501 and 502 of the Housing 
and Urban Development Act of 1970 (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1 and 1701z-
2), provides grants to remediate housing hazards that have been 
scientifically shown to negatively impact occupant health and 
safety.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $110,000,000 
for lead-based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities 
for fiscal year 2015, of which $15,000,000 is for the Healthy 
Homes Initiative. Of this amount, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $45,000,000 for the Lead Hazard Reduction 
Program, which was established in fiscal year 2003 to focus on 
major urban areas where children are disproportionately at risk 
for lead poisoning. This amount is $10,000,000 less than the 
President's budget request and equal to the amount available in 
fiscal year 2014.

                      Information Technology Fund

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $250,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     272,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     250,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Information Technology Fund finances the information 
technology [IT] systems that support departmental programs and 
operations, including FHA Mortgage Insurance, housing 
assistance and grant programs, as well as core financial and 
general operations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $250,000,000 
for the Information Technology Fund for fiscal year 2015, which 
is $22,000,000 less than the budget request and equal to the 
fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    The Committee has been very supportive of HUD's efforts to 
modernize its IT systems, which are critical to effectively 
overseeing its programs. For years, HUD has been hampered by 
outdated IT systems that aren't integrated, which limit its 
ability to manage and oversee grantees. In addition, HUD's 
efforts to work around system limitations to collect 
information for oversight purposes often results in increased 
work for grantees who have to input information into multiple 
systems. The Committee recognizes HUD's effort to better 
integrate systems, but there is still more work to be done, and 
IT system integration should remain a top priority for the 
Department.
    The Committee recognizes that development of more 
sophisticated systems may come with higher costs associated 
with the additional capabilities HUD is getting. At the same 
time, HUD must also achieve savings by eliminating legacy 
systems and old servers. The Committee directs HUD to be more 
diligent in identifying and achieving savings by retiring old 
systems and shutting off redundant and inefficient servers. To 
that end, the Committee directs HUD to submit a plan within 120 
days of enactment of this act that identifies savings it will 
achieve by retiring legacy systems and shutting off old 
servers. This should include target dates for taking such 
actions and expected savings from doing so. In addition, the 
Committee urges HUD to continue to look for savings when it 
renews contracts to reduce the ongoing costs of operating and 
maintaining its IT systems.
    The Committee is also concerned about the development of IT 
systems outside of the Information Technology Fund. The 
Committee understands that limited resources may prompt HUD 
offices to develop solutions with their own resources. The 
Committee expects that, at a minimum, OCIO will monitor and 
oversee the development of any such solutions. Of particular 
concern is the Real Estate Assessment Center, which 
continuously develops new ``tools'' with limited, if any, 
coordination with the OCIO. If systems continue to be developed 
outside of the normal process, integration with larger systems 
will likely be more difficult and costly in the future. The 
Committee directs the OCIO to monitor the development of new 
system solutions by every office in HUD to make sure they 
conform to HUD's enterprise architecture, and will be 
compatible with systems under development.
    GAO Oversight.--Since 2010, the Committee has required HUD 
to submit an expenditure plan outlining its IT modernization 
projects before it could spend a portion of its IT funding. The 
plans were reviewed by GAO to determine if they satisfied the 
statutory requirements. Based on reports and briefings from GAO 
over the past few years, the Committee recognizes the progress 
HUD has made in its IT modernization planning efforts, and the 
focus must now be on its implementation of the plans and 
execution of the projects. Therefore, the Committee has 
modified the contents of the plan HUD is required to submit to 
the Committee and GAO to provide: (1) details regarding HUD's 
portfolio of IT investments; and (2) the status of the 
Department's efforts in applying IT management controls. This 
plan may also include additional information regarding the 
extent to which IT management controls have been applied to the 
projects associated with each IT investment in the Department's 
portfolio. The Committee emphasizes the importance of pursuing 
a strategic approach as HUD continues to improve its IT 
management. To this end, in order to monitor the Department's 
progress, the Committee instructed GAO in 2012 to conduct 
several reviews. In 2013, GAO completed a review of the 
Department's IT project management practices. The Committee 
reaffirms its direction to GAO to also evaluate HUD's 
institutionalization of governance and cost estimating 
practices. In particular, the Committee remains interested in 
any cost savings or operational efficiencies that have resulted 
(or may result) from the Department's improvement efforts.
    CORE Financial Systems.--The Committee notes that following 
challenges with HUD's Integrated Financial Management 
Improvement Project [HIFMIP], HUD has undertaken an initiative 
to enter into a shared services contract with the Bureau of 
Public Debt's Administrative Resource Center for its financial 
systems. The Committee is closely following this project 
because it is focused on ensuring that HUD has a sound 
financial system. The Committee expects HUD to provide the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with quarterly 
updates on this project. The Committee also urges HUD to 
continue to consult with the OIG as this project moves forward.

                      Office of Inspector General

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $125,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     129,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     129,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation will finance all salaries and related 
expenses associated with the operation of the Office of the 
Inspector General [OIG].

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $129,000,000 
for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. The amount of 
funding is $4,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted 
level and equal to the President's request.
    The Committee notes that the congressional justification 
lacked sufficient details around proposed increases, and 
expects the fiscal year 2016 congressional justification to 
clearly justify any proposed increases or decreases.
    The Committee directs HUD's Office of Inspector General to 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on 
ways in which HUD could improve its oversight of public housing 
authorities. This report should include: a summary of areas of 
risk the OIG has encountered in previous reviews of PHAs; if 
reforms the Department is implementing will address those areas 
of risk; if the Department is appropriately targeting its 
technical assistance funding; and the effectiveness of its 
finance and governance training.
    The Committee supports the OIG's efforts to improve its 
information technology capacity, but the congressional 
justification does not provide sufficient detail on how these 
resources will be used and what additional capacity they will 
provide to the OIG. Therefore, the Committee directs the OIG to 
submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, 
within 30 days of enactment of this act, a spending plan 
detailing its intended information technology acquisitions in 
fiscal year 2015. The Committee further directs the OIG to 
submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations within 90 days of enactment of this act 
identifying the OIG's current information technology structure, 
systems and baseline costs, as well as its information 
technology strategy for fiscal year 2015 and future fiscal 
years. The report should identify planned acquisition of 
software and systems, associated costs, and the additional 
capacity the systems will provide.

                       Transformation Initiative

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $40,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015\1\................................      80,000,000
Committee recommendation\1\.............................      40,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This amount is by transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Transformation Initiative is the Department's effort to 
improve and streamline the systems and operations at HUD. 
Managed by the Office of Strategic Planning and Management, 
this initiative has three elements: (1) research, evaluation, 
and program metrics; (2) program demonstrations; and (3) 
technical assistance and capacity building. Funding to support 
these activities is provided by transfer from other HUD 
programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee includes up to $40,000,000 for the 
Transformation Initiative [TI], which will be funded through 
transfers of up to 0.5 percent from HUD programs, as requested. 
The budget proposed $80,000,000 for this activity. In fiscal 
year 2014, $40,000,000 was provided as a direct appropriation.
    In fiscal year 2010, the administration launched TI to 
improve the operations and capacity of HUD. TI funds research 
and demonstrations to better equip HUD to address the Nation's 
housing needs. In addition to improving HUD's own operations, 
TI also includes funding to improve the capacity and 
performance of its grantees through technical assistance [TA]. 
The Committee believes that the funding provided will help HUD 
develop evidence-based policies and improve program outcomes.
    Within the amount requested, at least $25,000,000 is for 
technical assistance [TA] across HUD programs. Of the amount 
for TA, at least $3,000,000 is to support training for public 
housing agencies on finance and governance. At least $500,000 
is also included for culturally appropriate technical 
assistance to support implementation of the housing plus 
services model on reservations in Indian areas as part of the 
HUD-VASH pilot.
    TI also includes funding for research and demonstrations to 
help improve program understanding and service delivery. Of the 
amount provided, the recommendation supports $2,000,000 to 
continue the pre-purchase counseling demonstration; $650,000 to 
continue the rent reform demonstration; and $1,000,000 to 
continue the Small Area Market Rent Demonstration. In addition, 
the Committee supports adding funding for the following new 
projects: HUD-HHS data matching, accelerated post-disaster 
community recovery; an evaluation of the HUD-VASH pilot on 
Native American reservations; building technology research; and 
outreach and technical assistance around new Violence Against 
Women Act requirements. HUD can determine how to allocate the 
remaining funding between TA and the other research and 
demonstration projects it requested, and should include this 
information in its operating plan.
    The recommendation does not include funding for the Natural 
Experiments Grant Program or Demonstration and Related Small 
Grants.
    Fulfilling New VAWA Requirements.--In March 2013, the 
Violence Against Women Act of 2013 [VAWA] was enacted. Among 
the important housing related provisions included in the law 
are the expansion of core VAWA protections to additional 
Federal housing programs and the requirement that Federal 
housing assistance providers develop emergency transfer plans 
for survivors of domestic violence. These plans will help 
prepare housing providers to effectively assist tenants that 
are facing safety threats and need to move quickly. The 
Committee understands that HUD expects to issue a proposed rule 
on how to meet this requirement this summer.
    As a result of the circumstances facing those impacted by 
domestic violence, it is important that housing providers have 
an understanding of their particular needs so they can develop 
appropriate policies and responses to their situations. 
Coordination between service providers for survivors of 
domestic violence and housing systems is essential to 
developing sound policies and effectively meeting the housing 
needs of those men and women trying to escape abusive 
environments and for domestic violence survivors.
    To help support HUD's work to ensure that housing providers 
are fulfilling their responsibilities under VAWA, and to 
improve coordination between domestic violence support and 
housing systems, the Committee is providing $1,000,000 for 
activities related to VAWA implementation. Funding is provided 
to help identify and evaluate effective emergency transfer 
plans, in order to develop and disseminate best practices to 
providers. Funding is also available to facilitate coordination 
between housing and domestic violence service providers and 
systems. In addition, resources are available to educate 
housing providers on how to assist those impacted by domestic 
violence. The Committee directs HUD to work with the Department 
of Justice's Office of Violence Against Women, as well as the 
Department of Health and Human Service's Administration for 
Children and Families to improve Federal coordination. HUD 
should also coordinate with these Federal partners on the 
formulation of best practices and education of housing 
providers.
    Accelerated Post-Disaster Community Recovery.--The 
Community Development Block Grant is an important resource for 
communities trying to rebuild after disasters. While the 
Committee recognizes the benefit of CDBG in disaster recovery, 
it is also aware that many communities experience delays in 
deploying the funding they receive because they must develop 
new programs, or significantly increase the scale of existing 
ones, to meet disaster related needs. In addition to designing 
programs, communities must also put systems in place to ensure 
funding is appropriately used and does not duplicate other 
Federal programs.
    Since Hurricane Katrina, HUD has learned a great deal about 
how to successfully address needs arising from disasters, 
including programs that communities commonly use to facilitate 
long-term recovery, as well as how to effectively partner with 
other Federal agencies. HUD can use its experience to not only 
help communities think about programs that are well-suited to 
their recovery needs, but also how to set up these programs 
more quickly.
    The Committee is including $2,000,000 for HUD to do a 
demonstration on accelerated post-disaster community recovery. 
Under the demonstration, HUD will do research into best 
practices based on the experience of previous CDBG disaster 
grant recipients. Based on this research, it will develop model 
programs and forms for communities to use in establishing their 
own programs. The demonstration should also include the 
development of IT infrastructure that would allow for data 
sharing across HUD programs and with other agencies. To 
maximize the effectiveness of the demonstration, the Committee 
directs HUD to work with those Federal agencies that are often 
involved in disaster recovery, such as the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency and Small Business Administration. The 
Committee expects that with a menu of programs ready to 
implement, communities will be better equipped for disaster 
recovery and able to provide relief to those impacted by 
disasters more quickly.

    General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban Development

    The Committee recommends administrative provisions. A brief 
description follows.
    Sec. 201. This section promotes the refinancing of certain 
housing bonds.
    Sec. 202. This section clarifies a limitation on the use of 
funds under the Fair Housing Act.
    Sec. 203. This section extends sections 203 and 209 of the 
Fiscal Year 2012 Appropriations Act that clarifies the 
allocation of HOPWA funding for fiscal year 2006 and beyond.
    Sec. 204. This section requires HUD to award funds on a 
competitive basis unless otherwise provided.
    Sec. 205. This section allows funds to be used to reimburse 
GSEs and other Federal entities for various administrative 
expenses.
    Sec. 206. This section limits HUD spending to amounts set 
out in the budget justification.
    Sec. 207. This section clarifies expenditure authority for 
entities subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
    Sec. 208. This section requires quarterly reports on all 
uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD 
programs.
    Sec. 209. This section requires HUD to submit the 
congressional justification in the same account and subaccount 
structure.
    Sec. 210. This section exempts Los Angeles County, Alaska, 
Iowa, and Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA 
resident on the board of directors for fiscal year 2015. 
Instead, the public housing agencies in these States are 
required to establish advisory boards that include public 
housing tenants and section 8 recipients.
    Sec. 211. This section exempts GNMA from certain 
requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
    Sec. 212. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer 
of existing project-based subsidies and liabilities from 
obsolete housing to housing that better meets the needs of the 
assisted tenants.
    Sec. 213. This section reforms certain section 8 rent 
calculations as related to athletic scholarships.
    Sec. 214. This section provides allocation requirements for 
Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block 
Grant program.
    Sec. 215. This section eliminates a cap on Home Equity 
Conversion Mortgages for fiscal year 2015.
    Sec. 216. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8 
assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing.
    Sec. 217. This section clarifies the use of the 108 loan 
guaranteed program for nonentitlement communities.
    Sec. 218. This section allows public housing authorities 
with less than 400 units to be exempt from management 
requirements in the operating fund rule.
    Sec. 219. This section restricts the Secretary from 
imposing any requirement or guideline relating to asset 
management that restricts or limits the use of capital funds 
for central office costs, up to the limit established in QWHRA.
    Sec. 220. This section requires allotment holders to meet 
certain criteria of the CFO.
    Sec. 221. This section requires the Secretary to report 
annually on the status of all project-based section 8 housing.
    Sec. 222. The section modifies the NOFA process to include 
the Internet.
    Sec. 223. This section limits attorney fees.
    Sec. 224. This section establishes reprogramming and 
reallocation requirements within HUD's salaries and expenses 
accounts.
    Sec. 225. This section allows the Disaster Housing 
Assistance Programs to be considered HUD programs for the 
purpose of income verification and matching.
    Sec. 226. This section requires HUD to take certain actions 
against owners receiving rental subsidies that do not maintain 
safe properties.
    Sec. 227. This section places limits on PHA compensation.
    Sec. 228. This section extends the HOPE VI program until 
September 30, 2015.
    Sec. 229. This section allows the Secretary to transfer 
funding from salaries and expenses accounts to the 
``Information Technology Fund'' to support technology 
improvements.
    Sec. 230. This section prohibits funds from being used for 
the doctoral dissertation research grant program.
    Sec. 231. This section modifies the Rental Assistance 
Demonstration included in the fiscal year 2012 bill.
    Sec. 232. This section requires the Secretary to provide 
the Committee with advance notification before discretionary 
awards are made.
    Sec. 233. This section extends section 579 of the 
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 
1997 through October 1, 2018.
    Sec. 234. This section allows PHAs to establish replacement 
reserves to address capital needs.
    Sec. 235. This section increases the flexibility of public 
housing authorities to transfer funds between their capital and 
operating funds.
    Sec. 236. This section makes changes to the HOME Investment 
Partnerships program.
    Sec. 237. This section allows the Secretary to conduct a 
demonstration to test a performance-based model program that 
facilitates financing of energy and water conservation 
improvements in assisted multifamily housing to reduce utility 
costs.
    Sec. 238. This section makes modifications to SHOP to 
reflect current uses of the funding and limit the amount that 
can be used for administrative expenses.
    Sec. 239. This section requires lenders that provide loans 
under the Native American Loan program to consider loan 
modifications and meet standards for servicing loans in default 
before the payment of a claim by HUD.
    Sec. 240. This section permits HUD to charge a fee on FHA 
mortgages to be used to cover administrative costs.
    Sec. 241. This section permits HUD to publish Fair Market 
Rents online.
    Sec. 242. This section rescinds balances from various HUD 
programs that are no longer funded.
    Sec. 243. This section clarifies that the HAWK program 
shall be funded within amounts appropriated.
    Sec. 244. This section allows for multi-year housing 
counseling grants, subject to appropriations.
    Sec. 245. This section amends section 526 of the National 
Housing Act to permits exceptions for alternative water systems 
that meet requirements of State and local building codes that 
ensure health and safety standards.
    Sec. 246. This section allows the Secretary to make 
assistance available from the CDBG Sanctions Fund to States for 
use by a non-entitlement area that had a major disaster 
declared in 2014.

                               TITLE III

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                              Access Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014....................................      $7,448,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................       7,548,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,548,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $7,548,000 for the operations of 
the Access Board. This level of funding is $100,000 more than 
the 2014 enacted level and equal to the President's fiscal year 
2015 request.

                      Federal Maritime Commission

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $24,669,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      25,660,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,660,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is an independent 
regulatory agency which administers the Shipping Act of 1984 
(Public Law 98-237), as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform 
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-258); section 19 of the Merchant 
Marine Act of 1920 (41 Stat. 998); the Foreign Shipping 
Practices Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-418); and Public Law 89-
777.
    FMC's mission is to foster a fair, efficient, and reliable 
international ocean transportation system and to protect the 
public from unfair and deceptive practices. To accomplish this 
mission, FMC regulates the international waterborne commerce of 
the United States. In addition, FMC has responsibility for 
licensing and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and 
assuring that vessel owners or operators establish financial 
responsibility to pay judgments for death or injury to 
passengers, or nonperformance of a cruise, on voyages from U.S. 
ports.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $25,660,000 for the salaries and 
expenses of the FMC for fiscal year 2015. This amount is equal 
to the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request and $991,000 
more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The request for 
additional funding and collection of user fees up to $300,000 
for necessary and authorized agency expenses to support an 
additional four full-time equivalent employees and to invest in 
mission-critical technologies is approved. Any user fees 
collected should be directed towards updating outdated 
information technology infrastructure, specifically hardware 
and software needs.
    The Committee commends FMC's efforts to promote access to 
foreign markets for American exports and efficient supply 
chains for the importation of goods for domestic production and 
consumption, pursuits that support economic growth and job 
creation. The Committee also supports FMC's continued efforts 
to protect consumers from potentially unlawful, unfair, or 
deceptive ocean transportation practices related to the 
movement of household goods or personal property in 
international oceanborne trade.

                National Railroad Passenger Corporation

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014....................................     $23,449,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................      24,449,000
Committee recommendation................................      23,449,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Inspector General for Amtrak was created by 
the Inspector General Act Amendment of 1988. The act recognized 
Amtrak as a ``designated Federal entity'' and required the 
railroad to establish an independent and objective unit to 
conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the 
programs and operations of Amtrak; recommend policies designed 
to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in Amtrak, 
and prevent and detect fraud and abuse; and to provide a means 
for keeping the Amtrak leadership and the Congress fully 
informed about problems in Amtrak operations and the 
corporation's progress in making corrective action.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $23,449,000 for the Amtrak Office 
of Inspector General [OIG]. This funding level is $1,000,000 
less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level. The Committee retains language that requires the 
Amtrak OIG to submit a budget request in similar format and 
substance to those submitted by other executive agencies in the 
Federal Government.
    The Committee commends the progress the OIG has made to 
implement an appropriate separation of duties, financial 
systems and hiring practices since fiscal year 2010. At that 
time, the Committee raised concerns with the lack of a fully 
independent and effective Amtrak OIG. The Committee changed the 
way the agency was funded to a direct appropriation. The 
Committee also required the Council of Inspectors General on 
Integrity and Efficiency [CIGIE] to review the OIG's policies 
and practices that were developed to achieve operational 
independence from Amtrak. The 2011 CIGIE study made 41 
recommendations to improve management, communications, 
investigative practices and operations. A subsequent fiscal 
year 2013 CIGIE peer review determined that the system of audit 
quality controls conformed to applicable professional standards 
and made no further recommendations. CIGIE also concluded that 
the OIG's system of internal safeguards and management 
procedures for investigations met CIGIE quality standards and 
Attorneys General Guidelines. Therefore, the OIG is no longer 
required to report semi-annually on its progress in addressing 
CIGIE recommendations since they have all been fully satisfied 
and implemented.

                  National Transportation Safety Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $103,027,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     103,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     103,981,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Initially established along with the Department of 
Transportation, the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] 
commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent 
Federal agency. The Board is charged by Congress with 
investigating every civil aviation accident in the United 
States as well as significant accidents in the other modes of 
transportation--railroad, highway, marine, and pipeline--and 
issuing safety recommendations aimed at preventing future 
accidents. Although it has always operated independently, NTSB 
relied on DOT for funding and administrative support until the 
Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-633) 
severed all ties between the two organizations starting in 
1975.
    In addition to its investigatory duties, NTSB is 
responsible for maintaining the Government's database of civil 
aviation accidents and also conducts special studies of 
transportation safety issues of national significance. 
Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international 
treaties, NTSB supplies investigators to serve as U.S. 
accredited representatives for aviation accidents overseas 
involving U.S.-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or 
major components of U.S. manufacture. NTSB also serves as the 
``court of appeals'' for any airman, mechanic, or mariner 
whenever certificate action is taken by the Federal Aviation 
Administration or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or when 
civil penalties are assessed by FAA.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $103,981,000 for the National 
Transportation Safety Board, which is $981,000 more than the 
budget request and $954,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level. The Committee has also continued to include 
language that allows NTSB to make payments on its lease for the 
NTSB training facility with funding provided in the bill.
    These additional resources are necessary to protect the 
NTSB's workforce. Under the administration's budget request, 
the NTSB would lose a total of five FTE--one from its railroad, 
pipeline and hazardous materials investigations office; one 
from its research and engineering office, and three from its 
aviation safety office. NTSB, however, must maintain a highly 
skilled workforce to investigate accidents, determine their 
probable causes, and extract important lessons so that future 
accidents may be prevented. No other agency or organization in 
the United States does the work of the NTSB, acting as an 
honest broker and offering unbiased analysis and safety 
recommendations.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2014....................................    $204,100,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................     182,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     186,600,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $186,600,000 
for NeighborWorks for fiscal year 2015. This amount is 
$4,600,000 more than the budget request and $17,500,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The Committee has 
included $136,600,000 to support NeighborWorks core programs, 
and continues to support the set-aside of $5,000,000 for the 
multifamily rental housing initiative, which has been 
successful in developing innovative approaches to producing 
mixed-income affordable housing throughout the Nation. The 
Committee directs NeighborWorks to provide a status report on 
this initiative in its fiscal year 2016 budget justification.
    Housing Counseling Assistance.--The Committee has included 
$50,000,000, as requested, to continue the National Foreclosure 
Mitigation Counseling Program [NFMC] initiated by Congress in 
fiscal year 2008. NFMC is not a permanent program, and the 
reduced funding level reflects improvements in the housing 
market. According to Black Knight Mortgage Monitor's report on 
the mortgage market from March 2014, delinquencies are at the 
lowest level since 2007 and foreclosures are at the lowest 
level since 2008. While the overall market is improving, 
certain markets are still experiencing high rates of 
foreclosure and delinquency, justifying continued funding of 
this program. Since NFMC funds are allocated based on loan 
performance data, the fiscal year 2015 awards should be 
targeted to areas that continue to face high levels of 
foreclosure.
    Mortgage Rescue Scams.--Since 2009, NeighborWorks has been 
working to raise awareness of mortgage rescue scams and help 
vulnerable homeowners access legitimate forms of assistance. 
This campaign targets at-risk communities and populations 
through public service announcements, public media, and the 
Internet. NeighborWorks is working with other partners, such as 
the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission to stop 
rescue scams. The Committee expects NeighborWorks to continue 
working with its partners to address this important issue.
    Rural Areas.--The Committee continues to support 
Neighborworks' efforts to build capacity in rural areas. The 
Committee urges the Corporation to continue these efforts.

           United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014....................................      $3,500,000
Budget estimate, 2015...................................       3,530,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,530,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is an 
independent agency created by the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
Assistance Act of 1987 to coordinate and direct the multiple 
efforts of Federal agencies and other designated groups. The 
Council was authorized to review Federal programs that assist 
homeless persons and to take necessary actions to reduce 
duplication. The Council can recommend improvements in programs 
and activities conducted by Federal, State, and local 
government, as well as local volunteer organizations. The 
Council consists of the heads of 19 Federal agencies, including 
the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and 
Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce, 
Defense, Education, Labor, and Transportation; and other 
entities as deemed appropriate.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,530,000 for 
the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [USICH]. 
This amount is equal to the budget request and $30,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    USICH supports Federal collaboration and implementation of 
the Federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. The 
Council's work on such issues as establishing common 
definitions of homelessness across programs and consolidating 
Federal data is helping to breakdown silos and increase Federal 
collaboration. Its work was recognized by GAO in its February 
2012 report on ways to reduce duplication, overlap, and 
fragmentation in the Federal Government. The Committee 
recommendation extends USICH's authorization so it can continue 
its important work.
    The Committee is aware that individuals who are homeless or 
in unstable housing situations are often living with multiple 
chronic conditions. The link between homelessness and long-term 
physical and behavioral health conditions is well documented. 
The Committee has recognized the cost-savings that can be 
achieved by using evidence-based practices, and has been 
supportive of such efforts, including through the HUD-VASH 
program and other permanent supportive housing through HUD's 
homeless assistance grants program. However, the Committee 
believes that more can be done to emphasize evidence-based 
practices in serving other populations. The Committee directs 
the USICH to continue to work to improve coordination between 
HUD, HHS and other Federal agencies, and to help communities 
use the Homeless Management Information System and other data 
to target affordable housing and homeless resources to high-
need, high-cost families and individuals. The Committee further 
encourages HUD to work with HHS and other Federal agencies to 
identify homeless individuals who have high utilization rates 
for emergency and other public services, and share strategies 
for combining affordable housing with health and social support 
services to improve both housing and health outcomes for these 
individuals.
    Homeless Youth.--One of the goals of the Federal Strategic 
Plan is to prevent and end homelessness among youth by 2020. 
The plan identifies four core targeted outcomes for youth 
experiencing homelessness--stable housing, permanent 
connections, education and employment, and social/emotional 
well-being. These outcomes appropriately identify the multiple 
needs of youth experiencing homelessness and underscore the 
importance of comprehensive solutions. To be successful, it 
will be critical to coordinate Federal services and programs 
and ensure that they are focused on these outcomes.
    The Committee notes that USICH has a working group on 
ending youth homelessness and has made improving data on youth 
homelessness and building capacity for service delivery 
priorities. The Committee supports these efforts and urges 
USICH to continue to facilitate data coordination and ensure 
the homeless services are youth appropriate.
    The Committee also directs USICH to undertake a review of 
Federal programs that can help prevent and end youth 
homelessness. This review should identify barriers to effective 
coordination, as well as ways to ensure that Federal programs 
serving homeless youth are designed to achieve the outcomes 
identified in the Federal strategic plan. The Committee 
requests that USICH deliver this report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations within 120 days of enactment of 
this act.

                                TITLE IV

                      GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

    Section 401 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-
Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings 
funded in this act.
    Section 402 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal 
year and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so 
provided herein.
    Section 403 limits expenditures for consulting service 
through procurement contracts where such expenditures are a 
matter of public record and available for public inspection.
    Section 404 prohibits the use of funds for employee 
training unless such training bears directly upon the 
performance of official duties.
    Section 405 authorizes the reprogramming of funds and 
specifies the reprogramming procedures for agencies funded by 
this act.
    Section 406 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances 
may remain available for certain purposes.
    Section 407 prohibits the use of funds for eminent domain 
unless such taking is employed for public use.
    Section 408 requires departments and agencies under this 
act to report information regarding all sole-source contracts.
    Section 409 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred 
without express authority.
    Section 410 protects employment rights of Federal employees 
who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the 
Armed Forces.
    Section 411 prohibits the use of funds for activities not 
in compliance with the Buy American Act.
    Section 412 prohibits funding for any person or entity 
convicted of violating the Buy American Act.
    Section 413 prohibits funds for first-class airline 
accommodation in contravention of section 301-10.122 and 301-
10.123 of title 41 CFR.
    Section 414 prohibits providing funds in this act or any 
prior act to the group ACORN or any of its affiliates, 
subsidiaries, or allied organizations.
    Section 415 restricts funds in this act from being used to 
enter into contracts with corporations that have recently been 
convicted of a felony criminal violation.
    Section 416 restricts funds in this act from being used to 
enter into contracts with corporations that have outstanding 
unpaid Federal tax liabilities for which all judicial or 
administrative remedies have been exhausted.
    Section 417 is a sense of Congress that Congress should not 
authorize spending cuts that would increase domestic poverty.
    Section 418 requires all agencies and departments funded in 
this act to report their vehicle fleet inventory and associated 
costs to Congress at the end of fiscal year 2015.
    Section 419 prohibits the use of any funds provided in this 
act for the painting of portraits of officers or employees of 
the Federal Government, including heads of Executive branch 
agencies, the military, independent agencies, and wholly owned 
Government corporations.
    Section 420 requires agencies funded in this act to report 
to their inspector general on the costs and other details of 
conferences held during fiscal year 2015.
    Section 421 restricts the number of employees agencies 
funded in this act may send to international conferences.
    Section 422 requires reports submitted by agencies funded 
in this act to be posted on the public agency Web site 30 days 
after its receipt by the Committee.
    Section 423 requires a detailed, annual report on any 
advertising expenditure made by any agency funded in this act.
    Section 424 prohibits using funds provided in this act to 
award bonuses to contractors on certain projects.
    Section 425 prohibits funds provided in this act from being 
used for premium travel by an agency that has not reported to 
GSA on premium travel during fiscal year 2014.
    Section 426 requires a report detailing efforts to address 
duplication identified by GAO's annual report on duplication.
    Section 427 prohibits funds from being used to purchase 
light bulbs for an office building unless, to the extent 
practicable, the light bulb has an Energy Star or Federal 
Energy Management Program designation.
    Section 428 requires agencies and departments funded in 
this act to respond to GAO recommendations in a timely manner.

  COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on 
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment 
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.''
    The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not 
covered under this rule, but reports this information in the 
spirit of full disclosure.
    The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal 
year 2015:

                 Title I--Department of Transportation

    National Infrastructure Investments
    Federal Highway Administration
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    Federal Railroad Administration
    Federal Transit Administration
    National Railroad Passenger Corporation

         Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development

    Rental Assistance:
        Rental Assistance Demonstration
        Section 8 Contract Renewals and Administrative Expenses
        Section 441 Contracts
        Section 8 Preservation, Protection, and Family 
Unification
        Contract Administrators
        Public Housing Capital Fund
        Public Housing Operating Fund
        Choice Neighborhoods
    Native American Housing Block Grant
    Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant
    Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund
    Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund
    Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids
    Community Development Fund:
        Community Development Block Grants
        Integrated Planning and Investment Grants
    HOME Program:
        HOME Investment Partnership
    Self Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity:
        Capacity Building
        Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program
        National Housing Development Corporation
    FHA General and Special Risk Program Account:
        Limitation on Guaranteed Loans
        Limitation on Direct Loans
        Credit Subsidy
        Administrative Expenses
    GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program 
Account:
        Limitation on Guaranteed Loans
        Administrative Expenses
    Policy Development and Research
    Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Program
    Lead Hazards Reduction Program
    Healthy Homes Program
    Salaries and Expenses

                      Title III--Related Agencies

    National Transportation Safety Board
        Amtrak Office of Inspector General

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 5, 2014, 
the Committee ordered favorably reported an original bill 
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, 
and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, 
provided, that the bill be subject to amendment and that the 
bill be consistent with the subcommittee allocation, by a 
recorded vote of 29-1, a quorum being present. The vote was as 
follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairwoman Mikulski                 Mr. Johanns
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Mrs. Murray
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Pryor
Mr. Tester
Mr. Udall
Mrs. Shaheen
Mr. Merkley
Mr. Begich
Mr. Coons
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Cochran
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Alexander
Ms. Collins
Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Graham
Mr. Kirk
Mr. Coats
Mr. Blunt
Mr. Moran
Mr. Hoeven
Mr. Boozman

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

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

                      TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING

                      Chapter 13--National Housing

                   Subchapter II--Mortgage Insurance

Sec. 1701x. Assistance with respect to housing for low- and moderate-
                    income families

(a) Authorization to provide information, advice, and technical 
            assistance; scope of assistance; authorization of 
            appropriations

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(i) Accountability for recipients of covered assistance

        (1) Tracking of funds

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        (3) Covered assistance

            For purposes of this subsection, the term ``covered 
        assistance'' means any grant or other financial 
        assistance provided under this section.
    (j) Financial assistance.--For purposes of this section, 
the Secretary may enter into multiyear agreements as is 
appropriate, subject to the availability of annual 
appropriations.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1708. Federal Housing Administration operations

(a) Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(h) Use of name

    The Secretary shall, by regulation, require each mortgagee 
approved by the Secretary for participation in the FHA mortgage 
insurance programs of the Secretary--
            (1) to use the business name of the mortgagee that 
        is registered with the Secretary in connection with 
        such approval in all advertisements and promotional 
        materials, as such terms are defined by the Secretary, 
        relating to the business of such mortgagee in such 
        mortgage insurance programs; and
            (2) to maintain copies of all such advertisements 
        and promotional materials, in such form and for such 
        period as the Secretary requires.
    (i) Administration.--Notwithstanding any provision of law, 
and in addition to any other fees charged in connection with 
the provision of insurance under this title, in each fiscal 
year the Secretary may charge and collect a fee not to exceed 4 
basis points of the original principal balance of mortgages 
originated by the mortgagee that were insured under this title 
during the previous fiscal year. Such fee collected from each 
mortgagee shall be used as offsetting collections for part of 
the administrative contract expenses funding and any necessary 
salaries and expenses funding provided under the Mutual 
Mortgage Insurance Program Account under this title. The 
Secretary may establish the amount of such fee through 
regulations, notice, Mortgagee Letter, or other administrative 
issuance.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1715z-13a. Loan guarantees for Indian housing

(a) Authority

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(h) Payment under guarantee

        (1) Lender options

            (A) In general

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (B) Requirements

                    Before any payment under a guarantee is 
                made under subparagraph (A), the holder of the 
                guarantee shall exhaust all reasonable 
                possibilities of collection. Exhausting all 
                reasonable possibilities of collection by the 
                holder of the guarantee shall include a good 
                faith consideration of loan modification as 
                well as meeting standards for servicing loans 
                in default, as determined by the Secretary. 
                Upon payment, in whole or in part, to the 
                holder, the note or judgment evidencing the 
                debt shall be assigned to the United States and 
                the holder shall have no further claim against 
                the borrower or the United States. The 
                Secretary shall then take such action to 
                collect as the Secretary determines 
                appropriate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                      SUBCHAPTER V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 1735f-4. Minimum property standards

    (a) * * *
    (b) The Secretary may require that each property, other 
than a manufactured home, subject to a mortgage insured under 
this chapter shall, with respect to health and safety, comply 
with one of the nationally recognized model building codes, or 
with a State or local building code based on one of the 
nationally recognized model building codes or their equivalent. 
The Secretary shall be responsible for determining the 
comparability of the State and local codes to such model codes 
and for selecting for compliance purposes an appropriate 
nationally recognized model building code where no such model 
code has been duly adopted or where the Secretary determines 
the adopted code is not comparable.
    (c) The Secretary may establish an exception to any minimum 
property standard established under this section in order to 
address alternative water systems, including cisterns, which 
meet requirements of State and local building codes that ensure 
health and safety standards.
                                ------                                

                TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

                     Chapter 8--Low-Income Housing

           Subchapter I--General Program of Assisted Housing

Sec. 1437f. Low-income housing assistance

(a) Authorization for assistance payments

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    ``[SECS. 571 to 578. Repealed. Pub. L. 105-65, title V, 
Sec. 579(a)(2), as added by Pub. L. 107-116, title VI, 
Sec. 621(1), Jan. 10, 2002, 115 Stat. 2226.]
``SEC. 579. TERMINATION.
    ``(a) Repeals.--
            ``(1) Mark-to-market program.--Subtitle A (except 
        for section 524) is repealed effective [October 1, 
        2015] October 1, 2018.
            ``(2) OMHAR.--Subtitle D (except for this section) 
        is repealed effective October 1, 2004.
    ``(b) Exception.--Notwithstanding the repeal under 
subsection (a), the provisions of subtitle A (as in effect 
immediately before such repeal) shall apply with respect to 
projects and programs for which binding commitments have been 
entered into under this Act before [October 1, 2015] October 1, 
2018.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1437g. Public housing Capital and Operating Funds

(a) Merger into Capital Fund

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(g) Limitations on use of funds

        (1)(A) Flexibility for Capital Fund amounts

            Of any amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2000 or 
        any fiscal year thereafter that are allocated for 
        fiscal year 2000 or any fiscal year thereafter from the 
        Capital Fund for any public housing agency, the agency 
        may use not more than 20 percent for activities that 
        are eligible under subsection (e) of this section for 
        assistance with amounts from the Operating Fund, but 
        only if the public housing agency plan for the agency 
        provides for such use; and
            (B) Flexibility for operating fund amounts.--Of any 
        amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2015 or any fiscal 
        year thereafter that are allocated for fiscal year 2015 
        or any fiscal year thereafter from the Operating Fund 
        for any public housing agency, the agency may use not 
        more than 20 percent for activities that are eligible 
        under subsection (d) for assistance with amounts from 
        the Capital Fund, but only if the public housing plan 
        for the agency provides for such use.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(j) Penalty for slow expenditure of capital funds

        (1) Obligation of amounts

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        (6) Right of recapture

            Any obligation entered into by a public housing 
        agency shall be subject to the right of the Secretary 
        to recapture the obligated amounts for violation by the 
        public housing agency of the requirements of this 
        subsection.
            (7) Treatment of replacement reserve.--The 
        requirements of this subsection shall not apply to 
        funds held in replacement reserves established in 
        subsection (9)(n).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(m) Treatment of public housing
    (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (4) Effective date
            This subsection shall apply to fiscal year 1999 and 
        each fiscal year thereafter.
    (n) Establishment of Replacement Reserves.--
            (1) In general.--Public Housing authorities shall 
        be permitted to establish a Replacement Reserve to fund 
        any of the capital activities listed in subparagraph 
        (d)(1).
            (2) Source and amount of funds for replacement 
        reserve.--At any time, a public housing authority may 
        deposit funds from that agency's Capital Fund into a 
        Replacement Reserve subject to the following:
                    (A) At the discretion of the Secretary, 
                PHAs may be allowed to transfer and hold in a 
                Replacement Reserve, funds originating from 
                additional sources.
                    (B) No minimum transfer of funds to a 
                Replacement Reserve shall be required.
                    (C) At any time, a public housing authority 
                may not hold in a Replacement Reserve more than 
                the amount the public housing authority has 
                determined necessary to satisfy the anticipated 
                capital needs of properties in its portfolio 
                assisted under 42 U.S.C. 1437g as outlined in 
                its Capital Fund 5 Year Action Plan, or a 
                comparable plan, as determined by the 
                Secretary.
                    (D) The Secretary may establish by 
                regulation a maximum replacement reserve level 
                or levels that are below amounts determined 
                under subparagraph (C), which may be based upon 
                the size of the portfolio assisted under 42 
                U.S.C. 1437g or other factors.
            (3) In first establishing a replacement reserve, 
        the Secretary may allow public housing agencies to 
        transfer more than 20 percent of its operating funds 
        into its replacement reserve.
            (4) Expenditure.--Funds in a Replacement Reserve 
        may be used for purposes authorized by subparagraph 
        (d)(1) and contained in its Capital Fund 5 Year Action 
        Plan.
            (5) Management and report.--The Secretary shall 
        establish appropriate accounting and reporting 
        requirements to ensure that public housing agencies are 
        spending funding on eligible projects and that funding 
        in the reserve is connected to capital needs.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

(a) Purposes

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(m) Funding

    (1) Authorization of appropriations

            There are authorized to be appropriated for grants 
        under this section $574,000,000 for [fiscal year 2014.] 
        fiscal year 2015.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(o) Sunset

    No assistance may be provided under this section after 
[September 30, 2014.] September 30, 2015.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                   Chapter 69--Community Development

Sec. 5308. Guarantee and commitment to guarantee loans for acquisition 
                    of property

(a) Authority of Secretary; issuance of obligations by eligible 
            public entities or designated public agencies; 
            form, denomination, maturity, and conditions of 
            notes or other obligations; percentage allocation 
            requirements

    The Secretary is authorized, upon such terms and conditions 
as the Secretary may prescribe, to guarantee and make 
commitments to guarantee, only to such extent or in such 
amounts as provided in appropriation Acts, the notes or other 
obligations issued by eligible public entities, States on 
behalf of non-entitlement communities, or by public agencies 
designated by such eligible public entities, for the purposes 
of financing (1) acquisition of real property or the 
rehabilitation of real property owned by the eligible public 
entity (including such related expenses as the Secretary may 
permit by regulation); (2) housing rehabilitation; (3) economic 
development activities permitted under paragraphs (14), (15), 
and (17) of section 5305(a) of this title; (4) construction of 
housing by nonprofit organizations for homeownership under 
section 1437o(d)\1\ of this title or title VI of the Housing 
and Community Development Act of 1987; (5) the acquisition, 
construction, reconstruction, or installation of public 
facilities (except for buildings for the general conduct of 
government); or (6) in the case of colonias (as such term is 
defined in section 916 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
Affordable Housing Act), public works and site or other 
improvements. A guarantee under this section may be used to 
assist a grantee in obtaining financing only if the grantee has 
made efforts to obtain such financing without the use of such 
guarantee and cannot complete such financing consistent with 
the timely execution of the program plans without such 
guarantee. Notes or other obligations guaranteed pursuant to 
this section shall be in such form and denominations, have such 
maturities, and be subject to such conditions as may be 
prescribed by regulations issued by the Secretary. The 
Secretary may not deny a guarantee under this section on the 
basis of the proposed repayment period for the note or other 
obligation, unless the period is more than 20 years or the 
Secretary determines that the period causes the guarantee to 
constitute an unacceptable financial risk. Notwithstanding any 
other provision of law and subject only to the absence of 
qualified applicants or proposed activities and to the 
authority provided in this section, to the extent approved or 
provided in appropriation Acts, the Secretary shall enter into 
commitments to guarantee notes and obligations under this 
section with an aggregate principal amount of $2,000,000,000 
for fiscal year 1993 and $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1994. 
Of the amount approved in any appropriation Act for guarantees 
under this section in any fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
allocate 70 percent for guarantees for metropolitan cities, 
urban counties, and Indian tribes and 30 percent for guarantees 
for units of general local government in nonentitlement areas. 
The Secretary may waive the percentage requirements of the 
preceding sentence in any fiscal year only to the extent that 
there is an absence of qualified applicants or proposed 
activities from metropolitan cities, urban counties, and Indian 
tribes or units of general local government in nonentitlement 
areas.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[(k) Outstanding obligations; limitation; monitoring use of 
            guarantees under this section

    [(1) The total amount of outstanding obligations guaranteed 
on a cumulative basis by the Secretary pursuant to subsection 
(a) of this section shall not at any time exceed $4,500,000,000 
or such higher amount as may be authorized to be appropriated 
for sections 5306 and 5307 of this title for any fiscal year.
    [(2) The Secretary shall monitor the use of guarantees 
under this section by eligible public entities. If the 
Secretary finds that 50 percent of the aggregate guarantee 
authority has been committed, the Secretary may--
            [(A) impose limitations on the amount of guarantees 
        any one entity may receive in any fiscal year of 
        $35,000,000 for units of general local government 
        receiving grants under section 5306(b) of this title 
        and $7,000,000 for units of general local government 
        receiving grants under section 5306(d) of this title; 
        or
            [(B) request the enactment of legislation 
        increasing the aggregate limitation on guarantees under 
        this section.]
    (k) The Secretary shall monitor the use by eligible public 
entities and States of commitment amounts authorized in 
appropriation Acts for any fiscal year. If the Secretary finds 
that 50 percent of the annual commitment amount has been 
committed, the Secretary may impose a limitation on the amount 
of guarantees any one entity may receive in any fiscal year of 
$35,000,000 for units of general local government receiving 
grants under section 106(b) or States receiving grants under 
section 106(d) and $7,000,000 for units of general local 
government receiving grants under section 106(d); or request 
the enactment of legislation increasing the annual commitment 
authority for guarantees under this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[(m) Limitation on imposition of fee or charge

    No fee or charge may be imposed by the Secretary or any 
other Federal agency on or with respect to a guarantee made by 
the Secretary under this section after February 5, 1988.]
    (m) Distribution of Funds to Local Governments in Non-
entitlement Areas.--Any State receiving a guarantee or 
commitment on behalf of non-entitlement areas shall distribute 
all funds that are subject to such guarantee to the units of 
general local government in non-entitlement areas that received 
the commitment.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    Chapter 119--Homeless Assistance

    Subchapter II--United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

Sec. 11314. Director and staff

(a) Director

    The Council shall appoint an Executive Director, who shall 
be compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate of basic pay 
payable for [level V] level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
section 5316 of title 5. The Council shall appoint an Executive 
Director at the first meeting of the Council held under section 
11312(c) of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 11319. Termination

    The Council shall cease to exist, and the requirements of 
this subchapter shall terminate, on October 1, 2016\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\So in original. Probably should be followed by a period.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

                Chapter 130--National Affordable Housing

             Subchapter I--General Provisions and Policies

Sec. 12704. Definitions

    As used in this subchapter and in subchapter II of this 
chapter:
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (6) The term ``community housing development 
        organization'' means a nonprofit organization as 
        defined in paragraph (5), that--
                    (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (D) has a history of serving the local 
                community or communities within which housing 
                to be assisted under this Act is to be located.
    In the case of an organization funded by the State under 
title II of this Act, the organization may serve all counties 
within the State.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            Subchapter II--Investment In Affordable Housing

Sec. 12755. Tenant and participant protections

(a) Lease

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(b) Termination of tenancy

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 12805. Sweat equity model program

               Assistance for Self-Help Housing Providers

    Pub. L. 104-120, Sec. 11, Mar. 28, 1996, 110 Stat. 841, as amended 
by Pub. L. 105-276, title V, Sec. 599E(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 
2663; Pub. L. 106-569, title II, Sec. 202, Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 
2951; Pub. L. 108-285, Sec. 2, Aug. 2, 2004, 118 Stat. 917, provided 
that:
    ``(a) Grant Authority.--* * *
    ``(b) Goals and Accountability.* * *
            ``(1) assistance provided under this section is 
        used to facilitate and encourage innovative 
        homeownership opportunities through the provision of 
        self-help housing, under which the homeowner 
        contributes a significant amount of sweat equity toward 
        the construction of the new dwellings or the 
        rehabilitation of existing dwellings;
            ``(2) assistance provided under this section for 
        land acquisition and infrastructure development results 
        in the development of not less than 4,000 new or 
        rehabilitated dwellings;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    ``(d) Use.--
            ``(1) Purpose.--Amounts from grants made under this 
        section, including any recaptured amounts, shall be 
        used only for eligible expenses in connection with 
        developing new decent, safe, and sanitary nonluxury 
        dwellings or rehabilitating existing dwellings to make 
        them decent, safe and sanitary in the United States for 
        families and persons who otherwise would be unable to 
        afford to purchase a dwelling.
            ``(2) Eligible expenses.* * *
                    ``(A) Land acquisition.* * *
                    ``(B) Infrastructure improvement.--
                Installing, extending, constructing, 
                rehabilitating, or otherwise improving 
                utilities and other infrastructure.
                    ``(C) Planning, administration, and 
                management.--Planning, administration, and 
                management of grant programs and activities, 
                provided that such expenses do not exceed 20 
                percent of any grant made under this section.
    ``(i) Grant Agreement.--A grant under this section shall be 
made only pursuant to a grant agreement entered into by the 
Secretary and the organization or consortia receiving the 
grant, which shall--
            ``(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            ``(5) provide that the Secretary shall recapture 
        any grant amounts provided to the organization or 
        consortia that are not used within [24] 36 months after 
        such amounts are first disbursed to the organization or 
        consortia, [except that such period shall be 36 months 
        in the case of grant amounts from amounts made 
        available for fiscal year 1996 to carry out this 
        section, and in the case of a [sic] grant amounts 
        provided to a local affiliate of the organization or 
        consortia that is developing five or more dwellings in 
        connection with such grant amounts]; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    ``(j) Fulfillment of Grant Agreement.--
            ``(1) Redistribution of funds._If the Secretary 
        determines that an organization or consortia awarded a 
        grant under this section has not, within [24] 36 months 
        after grant amounts are first made available to the 
        organization or consortia [(or, in the case of grant 
        amounts from amounts made available for fiscal year 
        1996 to carry out this section and grant amounts 
        provided to a local affiliate of the organization or 
        consortia that is developing five or more dwellings in 
        connection with such grant amounts, within 36 months)], 
        substantially fulfilled the obligations under the grant 
        agreement, including development of the appropriate 
        number of dwellings under the agreement, the Secretary 
        shall use any such undisbursed amounts remaining from 
        such grant for other grants in accordance with this 
        section.
            ``(2) Deadline for completion and conveyance.--The 
        Secretary shall establish a deadline (which may be 
        extended for good cause as determined by the Secretary) 
        by which time all units that have been assisted with 
        grant funds under this section must be completed and 
        conveyed.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [``(q) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue any final 
regulations necessary to carry out this section not later than 
30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Mar. 28, 
1996]. The regulations shall take effect upon issuance and may 
not exceed, in length, 5 full pages in the Federal Register.'']
                                ------                                

                        TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

            Chapter 51--Transportation of Hazardous Material

Sec. 5116. Planning and training grants, monitoring, and review

    (a) Planning Grants.--* * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (i) Annual Registration Fee Account and Its Uses.--* * *

            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (4) to pay administrative costs of carrying out 
        this section and sections 5108(g)(2) and 5115 of this 
        title, except that not more than [2 percent] 4 percent 
        of the amounts made available from the account in a 
        fiscal year may be used to pay those costs.
                                ------                                

                    Chapter 471--Airport Development

                   Subchapter I--Airport Improvement

Sec. 47109. United States Government's share of project costs

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Grandfather Rule.--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (2) Limitation.--The Government's share of 
        allowable project costs determined under this 
        subsection shall not exceed the lesser of 93.75 percent 
        or the highest percentage Government share applicable 
        to any project in any State under subsection (b), 
        except that at a non-hub airport located in a State as 
        set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection that is 
        within 15 miles of another State as set forth in 
        paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Government's 
        share shall be an average of the Government share 
        applicable to any project in each of the States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

    (a) Government Relief From Liability.-- * * *

    (b) Air Traffic Control Contract Program.--

            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

                                TITLE II

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                    Rental Assistance Demonstration

                    Rental Assistance Demonstration

    To conduct a demonstration designed to preserve and improve 
public housing and certain other multifamily housing through 
the voluntary conversion of properties with assistance under 
section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 
(hereinafter, ``the Act''), or the moderate rehabilitation 
program under section 8(e)(2) of the Act ([except for funds 
allocated under such section for single room occupancy 
dwellings as authorized by title IV of the McKinney-Vento 
Homeless Assistance Act)], to properties with assistance under 
a project-based subsidy contract under section 8 of the Act, 
which shall be eligible for renewal under section 524 of the 
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 
1997, or assistance under section 8(o)(13) of the Act, the 
Secretary may transfer amounts provided through contracts under 
section 8(e)(2) of the Act or under the headings ``Public 
Housing Capital Fund'' and ``Public Housing Operating Fund'' to 
the headings ``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'' or ``Project-
Based Rental Assistance'':  Provided, That the initial long-
term contract under which converted assistance is made 
available may allow for rental adjustments only by an operating 
cost factor established by the Secretary, and shall be subject 
to the availability of appropriations for each year of such 
term:  Provided further, That project applications may be 
received under this demonstration until September 30, [2015] 
2018:  Provided further, That any increase in cost for 
``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'' or ``Project-Based Rental 
Assistance'' associated with such conversion in excess of 
amounts made available under this heading shall be equal to 
amounts transferred from ``Public Housing Capital Fund'' and 
``Public Housing Operating Fund'' or other account from which 
it was transferred:  Provided further, That not more than 
[60,000185,000 units currently receiving assistance under 
section 9 or section 8(e)(2) of the Act shall be converted 
under the authority provided under this heading:  Provided 
further, That tenants of such properties with assistance 
converted from assistance under section 9 shall, at a minimum, 
maintain the same rights under such conversion as those 
provided under sections 6 and 9 of the Act:  Provided further, 
That the Secretary shall select properties from applications 
for conversion as part of this demonstration through a 
competitive process:  Provided further, That in establishing 
criteria for such competition, the Secretary shall seek to 
demonstrate the feasibility of this conversion model to 
recapitalize and operate public housing properties (1) in 
different markets and geographic areas, (2) within portfolios 
managed by public housing agencies of varying sizes, and (3) by 
leveraging other sources of funding to recapitalize properties: 
 Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide an 
opportunity for public comment on draft eligibility and 
selection criteria and procedures that will apply to the 
selection of properties that will participate in the 
demonstration:  Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
provide an opportunity for comment from residents of properties 
to be proposed for participation in the demonstration to the 
owners or public housing agencies responsible for such 
properties:  Provided further, That the Secretary may waive or 
specify alternative requirements for (except for requirements 
related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, 
and the environment) any provision of section 8(o)(13) or any 
provision that governs the use of assistance from which a 
property is converted under the demonstration or funds made 
available under the headings of ``Public Housing Capital 
Fund'', ``Public Housing Operating Fund'', and ``Project-Based 
Rental Assistance'', under this Act or any prior Act or any Act 
enacted during the period of conversion of assistance under the 
demonstration for properties with assistance converted under 
the demonstration, upon a finding by the Secretary that any 
such waivers or alternative requirements are necessary for the 
effective conversion of assistance under the demonstration:  
Provided further, That the Secretary shall publish by notice in 
the Federal Register any waivers or alternative requirements 
pursuant to the previous proviso no later than 10 days before 
the effective date of such notice:  Provided further, That the 
demonstration may proceed after the Secretary publishes notice 
of its terms in the Federal Register:  Provided further, That 
notwithstanding sections 3 and 16 of the Act, the conversion of 
assistance under the demonstration shall not be the basis for 
re-screening or termination of assistance or eviction of any 
tenant family in a property participating in the demonstration, 
and such a family shall not be considered a new admission for 
any purpose, including compliance with income targeting 
requirements:  Provided further, That in the case of a property 
with assistance converted under the demonstration from 
assistance under section 9 of the Act, section 18 of the Act 
shall not apply to a property converting assistance under the 
demonstration for all or substantially all of its units, the 
Secretary shall require ownership or control of assisted units 
by a public or nonprofit entity except as determined by the 
Secretary to be necessary pursuant to foreclosure, bankruptcy, 
or termination and transfer of assistance for material 
violations or substantial default, in which case the priority 
for ownership or control shall be provided to a capable public 
entity, then a capable entity, as determined by the Secretary, 
shall require long-term renewable use and affordability 
restrictions for assisted units, and may allow ownership to be 
transferred to a for-profit entity to facilitate the use of tax 
credits only if the public housing agency preserves its 
interest in the property in a manner approved by the Secretary, 
and upon expiration of the initial contract and each renewal 
contract, the Secretary shall offer and the owner of the 
property shall accept renewal of the contract subject to the 
terms and conditions applicable at the time of renewal and the 
availability of appropriations each year of such renewal:  
Provided further, That the Secretary may permit transfer of 
assistance at or after conversion under the demonstration to 
replacement units subject to the requirements in the previous 
proviso:  Provided further, That the Secretary may establish 
the requirements for converted assistance under the 
demonstration through contracts, use agreements, regulations, 
or other means:  Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
assess and publish findings regarding the impact of the 
conversion of assistance under the demonstration on the 
preservation and improvement of public housing, the amount of 
private sector leveraging as a result of such conversion, and 
the effect of such conversion on tenants:  Provided further, 
That for fiscal years 2012 through [December 31, 2014] 2016, 
owners of properties assisted under section 101 of the Housing 
and Urban Development Act of 1965, section 236(f)(2) of the 
National Housing Act, or section 8(e)(2) (except for funds 
allocated under such section for single room occupancy 
dwellings as authorized by title IV of the McKinney-Vento 
Homeless Assistance Act) of the United States Housing Act of 
1937, for which an event after October 1, 2006 has caused or 
results in the termination of rental assistance or 
affordability restrictions and the issuance of tenant 
protection vouchers under section 8(o) of the Act, shall be 
eligible, subject to requirements established by the Secretary, 
including but not limited to tenant consultation procedures 
[and agreement of the administering public housing agency], for 
conversion of assistance available for such vouchers to 
assistance under a long-term project-based subsidy contract 
under section 8 of the Act, which shall have a term of no less 
than 20 years, with rent adjustments only by an operating cost 
factor established by the Secretary, which shall be eligible 
for renewal under section 524 of the Multifamily Assisted 
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f 
note), or, subject to agreement of the administering public 
housing agency, to assistance under section 8(o)(13) of the 
Act, to which the limitation under subsection (B) of section 
8(o)(13) of the Act shall not apply and for which the Secretary 
of Housing and Urban Development may waive or alter the 
provisions of subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 8(o)(13) of 
the Act: Provided further, That amounts made available under 
the heading ``Rental Housing Assistance'' during the period of 
conversion under the previous proviso, which may extend beyond 
fiscal year 2016 as necessary to allow processing of all timely 
applications, shall be available for project-based subsidy 
contracts entered into pursuant to the previous proviso: 
Provided further, That amounts, including contract authority, 
recaptured from contracts following a conversion under the 
previous two provisos are hereby rescinded and an amount of 
additional new budget authority, equivalent to the amount 
rescinded is hereby appropriated, to remain available until 
expended for such conversions: Provided further, That the 
Secretary may transfer amounts made available under the heading 
``Rental Housing Assistance'', amounts made available for 
tenant protection vouchers under the heading ``Tenant-Based 
Rental Assistance'' and specifically associated with any such 
conversions, and amounts made available under the previous 
proviso as needed to the account under the ``Project-Based 
Rental Assistance'' heading to facilitate conversion under the 
three previous provisos and any increase in cost for ``Project-
Based Rental Assistance'' associated with such conversion shall 
be equal to amounts so transferred:  Provided further, That 
[with respect to the previous proviso] with respect to the 
previous four provisos, the Comptroller General of the United 
States shall conduct a study of the long-term [impact of the 
previous proviso] impact of the fiscal year 2012 and 2013 
conversion of tenant protection vouchers to assistance under 
section 8(o)(13) of the Act on the ratio of tenant-based 
vouchers to project-based vouchers.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban Development

    Sec. 203. (a) Notwithstanding section 854(c)(1)(A) of the 
AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)(1)(A)), from 
any amounts made available under this title for [fiscal year 
2012] fiscal year 2015  that are allocated under such section, 
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall allocate 
and make a grant, in the amount determined under subsection 
(b), for any State that--
            (1) received an allocation in a prior fiscal year 
        under clause (ii) of such section; and
            (2) is not otherwise eligible for an allocation for 
        [fiscal year 2012] fiscal year 2015  under such clause 
        (ii) because the areas in the State outside of the 
        metropolitan statistical areas that qualify under 
        clause (i) in fiscal year 2011 do not have the number 
        of cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) 
        required under such clause.
    (b) The amount of the allocation and grant for any State 
described in subsection (a) shall be an amount based on the 
cumulative number of AIDS cases in the areas of that State that 
are outside of metropolitan statistical areas that qualify 
under clause (i) of such section 854(c)(1)(A) in [fiscal year 
2012] fiscal year 2015 , in proportion to AIDS cases among 
cities and States that qualify under clauses (i) and (ii) of 
such section and States deemed eligible under subsection (a).
    (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the amount 
allocated for [fiscal year 2012] fiscal year 2015  under 
section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 
12903(c)), to the city of New York, New York, on behalf of the 
New York-Wayne-White Plains, New York-New Jersey Metropolitan 
Division (hereafter ``metropolitan division'') of the New York-
Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area, shall be 
adjusted by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development by:
            (1) allocating to the city of Jersey City, New 
        Jersey, the proportion of the metropolitan area's or 
        division's amount that is based on the number of cases 
        of AIDS reported in the portion of the metropolitan 
        area or division that is located in Hudson County, New 
        Jersey, and adjusting for the proportion of the 
        metropolitan division's high-incidence bonus if this 
        area in New Jersey also has a higher than average per 
        capita incidence of AIDS; and
            (2) allocating to the city of Paterson, New Jersey, 
        the proportion of the metropolitan area's or division's 
        amount that is based on the number of cases of AIDS 
        reported in the portion of the metropolitan area or 
        division that is located in Bergen County and Passaic 
        County, New Jersey, and adjusting for the proportion of 
        the metropolitan division's high incidence bonus if 
        this area in New Jersey also has a higher than average 
        per capita incidence of AIDS. The recipient cities 
        shall use amounts allocated under this subsection to 
        carry out eligible activities under section 855 of the 
        AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12904) in their 
        respective portions of the metropolitan division that 
        is located in New Jersey.
    (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the amount 
allocated for [fiscal year 2012] fiscal year 2015  under 
section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 
12903(c)) to areas with a higher than average per capita 
incidence of AIDS, shall be adjusted by the Secretary on the 
basis of area incidence reported over a 3-year period.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Sec. 209. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the amount allocated for [fiscal year 2012] fiscal year 2015  
under section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 
U.S.C. 12903(c)), to the city of Wilmington, Delaware, on 
behalf of the Wilmington, Delaware-Maryland-New Jersey 
Metropolitan Division (hereafter ``metropolitan division''), 
shall be adjusted by the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development by allocating to the State of New Jersey the 
proportion of the metropolitan division's amount that is based 
on the number of cases of AIDS reported in the portion of the 
metropolitan division that is located in New Jersey, and 
adjusting for the proportion of the metropolitan division's 
high incidence bonus if this area in New Jersey also has a 
higher than average per capita incidence of AIDS. The State of 
New Jersey shall use amounts allocated to the State under this 
subsection to carry out eligible activities under section 855 
of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12904) in the 
portion of the metropolitan division that is located in New 
Jersey.
    (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall allocate to 
Wake County, North Carolina, the amounts that otherwise would 
be allocated for [fiscal year 2012] fiscal year 2015  under 
section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 
12903(c)) to the city of Raleigh, North Carolina, on behalf of 
the Raleigh-Cary North Carolina Metropolitan Statistical Area. 
Any amounts allocated to Wake County shall be used to carry out 
eligible activities under section 855 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
12904) within such metropolitan statistical area.
    (c) Notwithstanding section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing 
Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)), the Secretary of Housing 
and Urban Development may adjust the allocation of the amounts 
that otherwise would be allocated for [fiscal year 2012] fiscal 
year 2015  under section 854(c) of such Act, upon the written 
request of an applicant, in conjunction with the State(s), for 
a formula allocation on behalf of a metropolitan statistical 
area, to designate the State or States in which the 
metropolitan statistical area is located as the eligible 
grantee(s) of the allocation. In the case that a metropolitan 
statistical area involves more than one State, such amounts 
allocated to each State shall be in proportion to the number of 
cases of AIDS reported in the portion of the metropolitan 
statistical area located in that State. Any amounts allocated 
to a State under this section shall be used to carry out 
eligible activities within the portion of the metropolitan 
statistical area located in that State.
                                ------                                

      FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012, PUBLIC LAW 112-95

          TITLE IX--FEDERAL AVIATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

SEC. 916. REAUTHORIZATION OF CENTER OF EXCELLENCE IN APPLIED RESEARCH 
                    AND TRAINING IN THE USE OF [ADVANCED MATERIALS IN 
                    TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT] JOINT ADVANCED MATERIALS AND 
                    STRUCTURES.

    Section 708(b) of the Vision 100.--Century of Aviation 
Reauthorization Act (49 U.S.C. 44504 note) is amended by 
striking ``for fiscal year 2004'' and inserting ``for each of 
fiscal years 2012 through 2015''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                        BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Budget authority                 Outlays
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee    Amount  in     Committee    Amount  in
                                                           allocation       bill       allocation       bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with the subcommittee
 allocation for 2015: Subcommittee on Transportation and
 Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies:
    Mandatory...........................................  ............  ............  ............  ............
    Discretionary.......................................       54,439        54,439       119,834    \1\119,379
        Security........................................          186           186            NA            NA
        Nonsecurity.....................................       54,253        54,253            NA            NA
Projections of outlays associated with the
 recommendation:
    2015................................................  ............  ............  ............    \2\39,239
    2016................................................  ............  ............  ............       33,817
    2017................................................  ............  ............  ............       14,082
    2018................................................  ............  ............  ............        6,041
    2019 and future years...............................  ............  ............  ............        7,464
Financial assistance to State and local governments for            NA        32,441            NA        30,215
 2015...................................................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2015
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                            compared with (+ or -)
                             Item                                     2014         Budget estimate      Committee    -----------------------------------
                                                                  appropriation                      recommendation         2014
                                                                                                                        appropriation    Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses.........................................          107,000           109,916           108,000            +1,000            -1,916
    Immediate Office of the Secretary.........................           (2,652)           (2,696)           (2,696)             (+44)  ................
    Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary..................           (1,000)           (1,011)           (1,011)             (+11)  ................
    Office of the General Counsel.............................          (19,900)          (20,312)          (19,980)             (+80)            (-332)
    Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy          (10,271)          (10,417)          (10,300)             (+29)            (-117)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.          (12,676)          (13,111)          (12,676)  ................            (-435)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs           (2,530)           (2,567)           (2,500)             (-30)             (-67)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......          (26,378)          (27,420)          (27,131)            (+753)            (-289)
    Office of Public Affairs..................................           (2,020)           (2,061)           (2,000)             (-20)             (-61)
    Office of the Executive Secretariat.......................           (1,714)           (1,746)           (1,714)  ................             (-32)
    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....           (1,386)           (1,414)           (1,414)             (+28)  ................
    Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response..          (10,778)          (11,055)          (10,778)  ................            (-277)
    Office of the Chief Information Officer...................          (15,695)          (16,106)          (15,800)            (+105)            (-306)

Research and Technology.......................................           14,765            14,625            13,500            -1,265            -1,125
National Infrastructure Investments...........................          600,000   ................          550,000           -50,000          +550,000
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................  ................       (1,250,000)  ................  ................      (-1,250,000)
        (Limitation on obligations)...........................  ................       (1,250,000)  ................  ................      (-1,250,000)
Infrastructure Permitting Center..............................  ................            8,000   ................  ................           -8,000
Financial Management Capital..................................            7,000             5,000             5,000            -2,000   ................
Cyber Security Initiatives....................................            4,455             5,000             5,000              +545   ................
Office of Civil Rights........................................            9,551             9,600             9,600               +49   ................
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development............            7,000             8,000             6,000            -1,000            -2,000
    Rescission of unobligated balances........................           -2,750   ................  ................           +2,750   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................            4,250             8,000             6,000            +1,750            -2,000

Working Capital Fund..........................................         (178,000)  ................         (182,000)          (+4,000)        (+182,000)
Minority Business Resource Center Program.....................              925             1,013               925   ................              -88
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................          (18,367)          (18,367)          (18,367)  ................  ................
Minority Business Outreach....................................            3,088             3,099             3,099               +11   ................
Safe Transport of Oil.........................................  ................           40,000   ................  ................          -40,000
Payments to Air Carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)........          149,000           155,000           155,000            +6,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of the Secretary..........................          900,034           359,253           856,124           -43,910          +496,871
                                                               =========================================================================================
                Federal Aviation Administration

Operations....................................................        9,651,422         9,750,000         9,750,000           +98,578   ................
    Air traffic organization..................................       (7,311,790)       (7,396,654)       (7,396,654)         (+84,864)  ................
    Aviation safety...........................................       (1,204,777)       (1,215,458)       (1,215,458)         (+10,681)  ................
    Commercial space transportation...........................          (16,011)          (16,605)          (16,605)            (+594)  ................
    Finance and management....................................         (762,462)         (765,047)         (765,047)          (+2,585)  ................
    Staff offices.............................................         (296,600)         (296,147)         (296,147)            (-453)  ................
    NextGen...................................................          (59,782)          (60,089)          (60,089)            (+307)  ................

Facilities and Equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)........        2,600,000         2,603,700         2,473,700          -126,300          -130,000

Research, Engineering, and Development (Airport & Airway Trust          158,792           156,750           156,750            -2,042   ................
 Fund.........................................................
    Rescission of unobligated balances........................          -26,184   ................  ................          +26,184   ................

Grants-in-Aid for Airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)           (3,200,000)       (3,200,000)       (3,200,000)  ................  ................
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
        (Limitation on obligations)...........................       (3,350,000)       (2,900,000)       (3,480,000)        (+130,000)        (+580,000)
    Administration............................................         (106,600)         (107,100)         (107,100)            (+500)  ................
    Airport cooperative research program......................          (15,000)          (15,000)          (15,000)  ................  ................
    Airport technology research...............................          (29,500)          (29,750)          (29,750)            (+250)  ................
    Small community air service development program...........           (5,000)  ................           (8,000)          (+3,000)          (+8,000)
    FAA facilities and equipment located at airports..........  ................  ................         (130,000)        (+130,000)        (+130,000)
    Rescission of contract authority..........................  ................         -256,000          -256,300          -256,300              -300
    Pop-up contract authority.................................  ................          126,000           256,300          +256,300          +130,300
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Aviation Administration..................       12,384,030        12,380,450        12,380,450            -3,580   ................

        Limitations on obligations............................       (3,350,000)       (2,900,000)       (3,480,000)        (+130,000)        (+580,000)
          Total budgetary resources...........................      (15,734,030)      (15,280,450)      (15,860,450)        (+126,420)        (+580,000)
                                                               =========================================================================================
                   Administrative Provision

War Risk Insurance Program Extension..........................         -100,000   ................  ................         +100,000   ................

                Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on Administrative Expenses.........................         (416,100)         (439,000)         (426,100)         (+10,000)         (-12,900)

Federal-Aid Highways (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................      (40,995,000)      (48,062,248)      (40,995,000)  ................      (-7,067,248)
        (Limitation on obligations)...........................      (40,256,000)      (47,323,248)      (40,256,000)  ................      (-7,067,248)

    Fixing and Accelerating Surface Transportation              ................         (500,000)  ................  ................        (-500,000)
     (Liquidation of contract authorization)..................
        (Limitation on obligations)...........................  ................         (500,000)  ................  ................        (-500,000)

    (Exempt contract authority)...............................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Highway Administration...................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
          Limitations on obligations..........................      (40,256,000)      (47,823,248)      (40,256,000)  ................      (-7,567,248)
          Exempt contract authority...........................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................
            Total budgetary resources.........................      (40,995,000)      (48,562,248)      (40,995,000)  ................      (-7,567,248)
                                                               =========================================================================================
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs (Highway Trust            (259,000)         (315,770)         (271,000)         (+12,000)         (-44,770)
 Fund)(liquidation of contract authorization).................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (259,000)         (315,770)         (271,000)         (+12,000)         (-44,770)

National Motor Carrier Safety Program (Highway Trust Fund)              (13,000)  ................           (8,300)          (-4,700)          (+8,300)
 (liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................          (13,000)  ................           (8,300)          (-4,700)          (+8,300)

Motor Carrier Safety Grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation          (313,000)         (352,753)         (313,000)  ................         (-39,753)
 of contract authorization)...................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (313,000)         (352,753)         (313,000)  ................         (-39,753)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration......  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
          Limitations on obligations..........................         (585,000)         (668,523)         (592,300)          (+7,300)         (-76,223)
            Total budgetary resources.........................         (585,000)         (668,523)         (592,300)          (+7,300)         (-76,223)
                                                               =========================================================================================
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and Research.......................................          134,000   ................          134,500              +500          +134,500
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................  ................         (122,000)  ................  ................        (-122,000)
        (Limitation on obligations)...........................  ................         (122,000)  ................  ................        (-122,000)

Operations and Research Vehicle Safety (Highway Trust Fund)            (123,500)         (152,000)         (138,500)         (+15,000)         (-13,500)
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (123,500)         (152,000)         (138,500)         (+15,000)         (-13,500)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operations and Research.......................          257,500           274,000           273,000           +15,500            -1,000

Highway Traffic Safety Grants (Highway Trust Fund)                     (561,500)         (577,000)         (561,500)  ................         (-15,500)
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (561,500)         (577,000)         (561,500)  ................         (-15,500)
        Highway safety programs (23 USC 402)..................         (235,000)         (241,146)         (235,000)  ................          (-6,146)
        National priority safety programs (23 USC 405)........         (272,000)         (278,705)         (272,000)  ................          (-6,705)
        High visibility enforcement...........................          (29,000)          (29,000)          (29,000)  ................  ................
        Administrative expenses...............................          (25,500)          (28,149)          (25,500)  ................          (-2,649)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, National Highway Traffic Safety                        134,000   ................          134,500              +500          +134,500
           Administration.....................................
              Limitations on obligations......................         (685,000)         (851,000)         (700,000)         (+15,000)        (-151,000)
                Total budgetary resources.....................         (819,000)         (851,000)         (834,500)         (+15,500)         (-16,500)
                                                               =========================================================================================
                Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and Operations.........................................          184,500           185,250           191,250            +6,750            +6,000
Railroad Research and Development.............................           35,250            35,100            40,730            +5,480            +5,630

Railroad Grants (Legislative proposal):
    Current passenger rail service (HTF):
        (Liquidation of contract authorization)...............  ................       (2,450,000)  ................  ................      (-2,450,000)
            (Limitation on obligations).......................  ................       (2,450,000)  ................  ................      (-2,450,000)

    Rail service improvement program (HTF):
        (Liquidation of contract authorization)...............  ................       (2,325,000)  ................  ................      (-2,325,000)
            (Limitation on obligations).......................  ................       (2,325,000)  ................  ................      (-2,325,000)

Northeast Corridor Improvement Program (rescission)...........           -4,419   ................  ................           +4,419   ................
Next Generation High-Speed Rail (rescission)..................           -1,973   ................  ................           +1,973   ................

National Railroad Passenger Corporation:
    Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.....  ................  ................        1,390,000        +1,390,000        +1,390,000
    Operating Grants to the National Railroad Passenger                 340,000   ................  ................         -340,000   ................
     Corporation..............................................
    Capital and Debt Service Grants to the National Railroad          1,050,000   ................  ................       -1,050,000   ................
     Passenger Corporation....................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................        1,390,000   ................        1,390,000   ................       +1,390,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Railroad Administration..................        1,603,358           220,350         1,621,980           +18,622        +1,401,630
                                                               =========================================================================================
                Federal Transit Administration

Administrative Expenses.......................................          105,933   ................          110,500            +4,567          +110,500
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................  ................         (114,400)  ................  ................        (-114,400)
        (Limitation on obligations)...........................  ................         (114,400)  ................  ................        (-114,400)

Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................  ................          (25,000)  ................  ................         (-25,000)
        (Limitation on obligations)...........................  ................          (25,000)  ................  ................         (-25,000)

Transit Formula Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account         (9,500,000)      (13,800,000)       (9,500,000)  ................      (-4,300,000)
 (liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................       (8,595,000)      (13,800,000)       (8,595,000)  ................      (-5,205,000)

Fixing and Acceleration Surface Transportation (Liquidation of  ................         (500,000)  ................  ................        (-500,000)
 contract authorization)......................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................  ................         (500,000)  ................  ................        (-500,000)

Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Program..           40,000   ................           30,000           -10,000           +30,000
Transit Cooperative Research..................................            3,000   ................            3,000   ................           +3,000
Technical Assistance and Standards Development................            3,000   ................            5,000            +2,000            +5,000
Human Resources and Training..................................            2,000   ................              500            -1,500              +500
Technical Assistance and Training.............................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Transit Research and Training.................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................  ................          (60,000)  ................  ................         (-60,000)
        (Limitation on obligations)...........................  ................          (60,000)  ................  ................         (-60,000)
Rapid-Growth Area Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Program            ................         (500,000)  ................  ................        (-500,000)
 (liquidation of contract authorization)......................
      (Limitation on obligations).............................  ................         (500,000)  ................  ................        (-500,000)
Capital Investment Grants.....................................        1,942,938   ................        2,161,000          +218,062        +2,161,000
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................  ................       (2,500,000)  ................  ................      (-2,500,000)
        (Limitation on obligations)...........................  ................       (2,500,000)  ................  ................      (-2,500,000)

        Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Capital and Preventive Maintenance............................          150,000           150,000           150,000   ................  ................

                   Administrative Provisions

Rescission (Sec. 169).........................................          -96,228   ................  ................          +96,228   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Transit Administration...................        2,150,643           150,000         2,460,000          +309,357        +2,310,000
          Limitations on obligations..........................       (8,595,000)      (17,499,400)       (8,595,000)  ................      (-8,904,400)
            Total budgetary resources.........................      (10,745,643)      (17,649,400)      (11,055,000)        (+309,357)      (-6,594,400)
                                                               =========================================================================================
         Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and Maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)....           31,000            31,500            31,500              +500   ................

                    Maritime Administration

Maritime Security Program.....................................          186,000           211,000           186,000   ................          -25,000
Operations and Training.......................................          148,003           148,400           149,900            +1,897            +1,500
Ready Reserve Force (by transfer).............................  ................         (291,000)  ................  ................        (-291,000)
Ship Disposal.................................................            4,800             4,800             4,800   ................  ................
Assistance to Small Shipyards.................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................

Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account:
    Administrative expenses...................................            3,500             3,100             3,100              -400   ................
    Guaranteed loans subsidy..................................           35,000   ................            4,000           -31,000            +4,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................           38,500             3,100             7,100           -31,400            +4,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Maritime Administration..........................          377,303           367,300           347,800           -29,503           -19,500
                                                               =========================================================================================
    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Operational Expenses:
    General Fund..............................................           21,015            22,225            22,225            +1,210   ................
    Pipeline Safety Fund......................................              639   ................  ................             -639   ................
    Pipeline Safety Information grants to Communities.........           (1,500)           (1,500)           (1,500)  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................           21,654            22,225            22,225              +571   ................

Hazardous Materials Safety:
    General Fund..............................................           45,000            52,000            52,000            +7,000   ................
    Special Permit and Approval Fees..........................  ................           -6,000   ................  ................           +6,000

Pipeline Safety:
    Pipeline Safety Fund......................................           98,514           136,500           136,500           +37,986   ................
    Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund............................           18,573            19,500            19,500              +927   ................
    Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund........................            2,000             2,000             2,000   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          119,087           158,000           158,000           +38,913   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety                 185,741           226,225           232,225           +46,484            +6,000
       Administration.........................................

Pipeline Safety User Fees.....................................          -99,153          -136,500          -136,500           -37,347   ................
Pipeline Safety Design Review Fee.............................           -2,000            -2,000            -2,000   ................  ................

Emergency Preparedness Grants:
    Limitation on emergency preparedness fund.................          (28,318)          (28,318)          (28,318)  ................  ................
        (Emergency preparedness fund).........................             (188)             (188)             (188)  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety                 84,588            87,725            93,725            +9,137            +6,000
           Administration.....................................
                                                               =========================================================================================
                  Office of Inspector General

Salaries and Expenses.........................................           85,605            86,223            86,223              +618   ................

                 Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and Expenses.........................................           31,000            31,500            31,500              +500   ................
    Offsetting collections....................................           -1,250            -1,250            -1,250   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Surface Transportation Board.....................           29,750            30,250            30,250              +500   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title I, Department of Transportation............       17,680,311        13,713,051        18,042,552          +362,241        +4,329,501
          Appropriations......................................      (17,813,115)      (13,976,301)      (18,300,102)        (+486,987)      (+4,323,801)
          Rescissions.........................................        (-131,554)  ................  ................        (+131,554)  ................
          Rescissions of contract authority...................  ................        (-256,000)        (-256,300)        (-256,300)            (-300)
          Offsetting collections..............................          (-1,250)          (-7,250)          (-1,250)  ................          (+6,000)
      Limitations on obligations..............................      (53,471,000)      (75,767,171)      (53,623,300)        (+152,300)     (-22,143,871)
      (By transfer)...........................................  ................         (291,000)  ................  ................        (-291,000)
          Total budgetary resources...........................      (71,151,311)      (89,480,222)      (71,665,852)        (+514,541)     (-17,814,370)
                                                               =========================================================================================
     TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                 Management and Administration

Executive Offices.............................................           14,500            15,234            14,700              +200              -534
Administration Support Offices................................          506,000           530,783           519,867           +13,867           -10,916

Program Office Salaries and Expenses:
    Public and Indian Housing.................................          205,000           213,664           205,525              +525            -8,139
    Community Planning and Development........................          102,000           110,535           103,300            +1,300            -7,235
    Housing...................................................          381,500           386,677           386,677            +5,177   ................
    Policy Development and Research...........................           22,000            23,248            22,300              +300              -948
    Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity........................           69,000            77,629            69,700              +700            -7,929
    Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes...........            7,000             7,879             7,075               +75              -804
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          786,500           819,632           794,577            +8,077           -25,055
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Management and Administration....................        1,307,000         1,365,649         1,329,144           +22,144           -36,505
                                                               =========================================================================================
                   Public and Indian Housing

Tenant-based Rental Assistance:
    Renewals..................................................       17,365,527        18,006,550        17,719,000          +353,473          -287,550
    Tenant protection vouchers................................          130,000           150,000           130,000   ................          -20,000
    Administrative fees.......................................        1,500,000         1,705,000         1,555,000           +55,000          -150,000
    Veterans affairs supportive housing.......................           75,000            75,000            75,000   ................  ................
    Sec. 811 mainstream voucher renewals......................          106,691           108,450            83,160           -23,531           -25,290
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal (available this fiscal year)...................       19,177,218        20,045,000        19,562,160          +384,942          -482,840

    Advance appropriations....................................        4,000,000         4,000,000         4,000,000   ................  ................
    Less appropriations from prior year advances..............       -4,000,000        -4,000,000        -4,000,000   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Tenant-based Rental Assistance appropriated in          19,177,218        20,045,000        19,562,160          +384,942          -482,840
       this bill..............................................
                                                               =========================================================================================
Rental Assistance Demonstration...............................  ................           10,000            10,000           +10,000   ................
Public Housing Capital Fund...................................        1,875,000         1,925,000         1,900,000           +25,000           -25,000
Drug Elimination (rescission).................................  ................  ................           -1,101            -1,101            -1,101
Public Housing Operating Fund.................................        4,400,000         4,600,000         4,475,000           +75,000          -125,000
Choice Neighborhoods..........................................           90,000           120,000            90,000   ................          -30,000
Family Self-Sufficiency.......................................           75,000            75,000            75,000   ................  ................
Native American Housing Block Grants..........................          650,000           650,000           650,000   ................  ................
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant...........................           10,000            13,000            10,000   ................           -3,000
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account............            6,000             8,000             6,000   ................           -2,000
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................       (1,818,000)       (1,200,000)         (714,290)      (-1,103,710)        (-485,710)
Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account...........              100   ................              100   ................             +100
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................          (18,868)  ................          (16,130)          (-2,738)         (+16,130)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Public and Indian Housing........................       26,283,318        27,446,000        26,777,159          +493,841          -668,841
                                                               =========================================================================================
              Community Planning and Development

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS...................          330,000           332,000           330,000   ................           -2,000

Community Development Fund:
    CDBG formula..............................................        3,030,000         2,800,000         3,020,000           -10,000          +220,000
    Indian CDBG...............................................           70,000            70,000            70,000   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................        3,100,000         2,870,000         3,090,000           -10,000          +220,000

Rural Housing and Economic Development (rescission)...........  ................  ................           -2,300            -2,300            -2,300
Youth Build (rescission)......................................  ................  ................             -460              -460              -460

Community Development Loan Guarantees (Section 108):
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................         (150,000)         (500,000)         (500,000)        (+350,000)  ................
    Credit subsidy............................................            3,000   ................  ................           -3,000   ................
HOME Investment Partnerships Program..........................        1,000,000           950,000           950,000           -50,000   ................
Self-help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program......           50,000   ................           50,000   ................          +50,000
Capacity Building.............................................  ................           20,000   ................  ................          -20,000
Brownsfields (rescission).....................................  ................  ................           -2,913            -2,913            -2,913
Homeless Assistance Grants....................................        2,105,000         2,406,400         2,145,000           +40,000          -261,400
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Community Planning and Development...............        6,588,000         6,578,400         6,559,327           -28,673           -19,073
                                                               =========================================================================================
                       Housing Programs

Project-based Rental Assistance:
    Renewals..................................................        9,651,628         9,536,000         9,536,000          -115,628   ................
    Contract administrators...................................          265,000           210,000           210,000           -55,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal (available this fiscal year)...................        9,916,628         9,746,000         9,746,000          -170,628   ................

    Advance appropriations....................................          400,000           400,000           400,000   ................  ................
    Less appropriations from prior year advances..............         -400,000          -400,000          -400,000   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Project-based Rental Assistance appropriated in          9,916,628         9,746,000         9,746,000          -170,628   ................
       this bill..............................................
                                                               =========================================================================================
Housing for the Elderly.......................................          383,500           440,000           420,000           +36,500           -20,000
Housing for Persons with Disabilities.........................          126,000           160,000           135,000            +9,000           -25,000
Housing Counseling Assistance.................................           45,000            60,000            49,000            +4,000           -11,000
Rental Housing Assistance.....................................           21,000            28,000            28,000            +7,000   ................
Rent Supplement (rescission)..................................           -3,500   ................  ................           +3,500   ................
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund..........................            7,530            10,000            10,000            +2,470   ................
    Offsetting collections....................................           -6,530           -10,000           -10,000            -3,470   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Housing Programs.................................       10,489,628        10,434,000        10,378,000          -111,628           -56,000
                                                               =========================================================================================
                Federal Housing Administration

Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................     (400,000,000)     (400,000,000)     (400,000,000)  ................  ................
    (Limitation on direct loans)..............................          (20,000)          (20,000)          (20,000)  ................  ................
    Offsetting receipts.......................................      -10,841,000        -7,951,000        -7,951,000        +2,890,000   ................
    Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM).......................          -57,000           -36,000           -36,000           +21,000   ................
    Additional offsetting receipts (Sec. 244).................  ................          -32,000           -32,000           -32,000   ................
    Administrative contract expenses..........................          127,000           170,000           145,000           +18,000           -25,000

General and Special Risk Program Account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................      (30,000,000)      (30,000,000)      (30,000,000)  ................  ................
    (Limitation on direct loans)..............................          (20,000)          (20,000)          (20,000)  ................  ................
    Offsetting receipts.......................................         -926,000          -876,000          -876,000           +50,000   ................
        (Rescission)..........................................  ................  ................          -10,000           -10,000           -10,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Federal Housing Administration...............      -11,697,000        -8,725,000        -8,760,000        +2,937,000           -35,000
                                                               =========================================================================================
           Government National Mortgage Association

Guarantees of Mortgage-backed Securities Loan Guarantee
 Program Account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................     (500,000,000)     (500,000,000)     (500,000,000)  ................  ................
    Administrative expenses...................................           19,500            28,000            24,000            +4,500            -4,000
    Offsetting receipts.......................................         -100,000           -94,000           -94,000            +6,000   ................
    Offsetting receipts.......................................         -707,000          -742,000          -742,000           -35,000   ................
    Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM) (Sec. 210)............          -12,000           -28,000           -28,000           -16,000   ................
    Additional contract expenses..............................            1,000             1,000             1,000   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Gov't National Mortgage Association..............         -798,500          -835,000          -839,000           -40,500            -4,000
                                                               =========================================================================================
                Policy Development and Research

Research and Technology.......................................           46,000            50,000            46,000   ................           -4,000

              Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Fair Housing Activities.......................................           66,000            71,000            66,000   ................           -5,000

        Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes

Lead Hazard Reduction.........................................          110,000           120,000           110,000   ................          -10,000

                 Management and Administration

Information Technology Fund...................................          250,000           272,000           250,000   ................          -22,000
Office of Inspector General...................................          125,000           129,000           129,000            +4,000   ................
Transformation Initiative.....................................           40,000   ................  ................          -40,000   ................
    (by transfer).............................................  ................          (80,000)          (40,000)         (+40,000)         (-40,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Management and Administration....................          415,000           401,000           379,000           -36,000           -22,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Grand total, Management and Administration)............       (1,722,000)       (1,766,649)       (1,708,144)         (-13,856)         (-58,505)
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban               32,809,446        36,906,049        36,045,630        +3,236,184          -860,419
       Development............................................
          Appropriations......................................      (41,062,476)      (42,275,049)      (41,431,404)        (+368,928)        (-843,645)
          Rescissions.........................................          (-3,500)  ................         (-16,774)         (-13,274)         (-16,774)
          Advance appropriations..............................       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)  ................  ................
          Offsetting receipts.................................     (-12,643,000)      (-9,759,000)      (-9,759,000)      (+2,884,000)  ................
          Offsetting collections..............................          (-6,530)         (-10,000)         (-10,000)          (-3,470)  ................
      (By transfer)...........................................  ................           80,000            40,000           +40,000           -40,000
      (Limitation on direct loans)............................          (40,000)          (40,000)          (40,000)  ................  ................
      (Limitation on guaranteed loans)........................     (931,986,868)     (931,700,000)     (931,230,420)        (-756,448)        (-469,580)
                                                               =========================================================================================
             TITLE III--OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Access Board..................................................            7,448             7,548             7,548              +100   ................
Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General     ................           48,000   ................  ................          -48,000
 (legislative proposal).......................................
    Offsetting collections (legislative proposal).............  ................          -48,000   ................  ................          +48,000
Federal Maritime Commission...................................           24,669            25,660            25,660              +991   ................
National Railroad Passenger Corporation Inspector General.....           23,499            24,499            23,499   ................           -1,000
National Transportation Safety Board..........................          103,027           103,000           103,981              +954              +981
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.........................          204,100           182,000           186,600           -17,500            +4,600
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.............            3,500             3,530             3,530               +30   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies............          366,243           346,237           350,818           -15,425            +4,581
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Grand total.............................................       50,856,000        50,965,337        54,439,000        +3,583,000        +3,473,663
          Appropriations......................................      (59,241,834)      (56,645,587)      (60,082,324)        (+840,490)      (+3,436,737)
          Rescissions.........................................        (-135,054)  ................         (-16,774)        (+118,280)         (-16,774)
          Rescissions of contract authority...................  ................        (-256,000)        (-256,300)        (-256,300)            (-300)
          Advance appropriations..............................       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)  ................  ................
          Offsetting receipts.................................     (-12,643,000)      (-9,759,000)      (-9,759,000)      (+2,884,000)  ................
          Offsetting collections..............................          (-7,780)         (-65,250)         (-11,250)          (-3,470)         (+54,000)
      (By transfer)...........................................  ................          371,000            40,000           +40,000          -331,000
      (Limitation on obligations).............................      (53,471,000)      (75,767,171)      (53,623,300)        (+152,300)     (-22,143,871)
          Total budgetary resources...........................     (104,327,000)     (126,732,508)     (108,062,300)      (+3,735,300)     (-18,670,208)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


```