81–640 PDF 

Calendar No. 99 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 113–45 

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

2014 

JUNE 27, 2013.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. MURRAY, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1243] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1243) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and 

Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. 

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2014 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $54,045,000,000 

Amount of 2013 appropriations 1 2 .......................... 80,767,564,000 

Amount of 2014 budget estimate 3 .......................... 51,603,014,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2013 appropriations .......................................... ¥26,722,564,000 

2014 budget estimate 2 ...................................... ∂2,441,986,000 1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112– 

25. 2The fiscal year enacted level includes $29,070,000,000 in emergency funding provided by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of Public Law 113– 

2). 3The budget estimate proposed converting $1,452,000,000 previously treated as 

budget authority into obligation limits which are not included here. 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Overview and Summary of the Bill ........................................................................ 3 

Program, Project, and Activity ............................................................................... 4 

Reprogramming Guidelines .................................................................................... 4 

Congressional Budget Justifications ...................................................................... 5 

Title I: Department of Transportation: 

Office of the Secretary ...................................................................................... 7 

Federal Aviation Administration .................................................................... 23 

Federal Highway Administration .................................................................... 42 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ............................................... 53 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration .......................................... 59 

Federal Railroad Administration .................................................................... 66 

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

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ....................................... 84 

Maritime Administration ................................................................................. 85 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ........................... 90 

Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 93 

Surface Transportation Board ......................................................................... 95 

General Provisions—Department of Transportation ..................................... 95 

Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

Administration, Operations, and Management .............................................. 98 

Program Offices Salaries and Expenses ......................................................... 100 

Public and Indian Housing .............................................................................. 104 

Community Planning and Development ......................................................... 118 

Housing Programs ............................................................................................ 127 

Federal Housing Administration ..................................................................... 134 

Government National Mortgage Association .................................................. 137 

Policy Development and Research .................................................................. 138 

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

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

Information Technology Fund ......................................................................... 141 

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

Transformation Initiative ................................................................................ 143 

General Provisions—Department of Housing and Urban Development ...... 144 

Title III: Independent Agencies: 

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

Federal Maritime Commission ........................................................................ 148 

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

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

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

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ................................... 151 

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

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 155 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 156 

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

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

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 185 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 186 
(3) 

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL 

The Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and 

Related Agencies appropriations bill provides funding for a wide 

array of Federal programs, mostly in the Departments of Transportation [DOT] and Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. These 

programs include investment in road, transit, rail, maritime, and 

airport infrastructure; the operation of the Nation’s air traffic control system; housing assistance for those in need, including the 

homeless, elderly, and disabled; resources to support community 

planning and development; activities to improve road, rail, and 

pipeline safety; and a wide range of research efforts. 

The bill also provides funding for the Federal Housing Administration and Government National Mortgage Association to continue 

their traditional roles of providing access to affordable homeownership in the United States. 

The programs and activities supported by this bill include significant responsibilities entrusted to the Federal Government and its 

partners to protect human health and safety, support a vibrant 

economy, and achieve policy objectives strongly supported by the 

American people. The funding provided in this bill supports the investments necessary for a strong and economically competitive Nation. The ability to fulfill these responsibilities and make important 

investments is made challenging by pressure on available levels of 

discretionary spending as a consequence of the overall public debate on Federal spending, revenues, and size of the Federal debt. 

This bill makes the operation of the interstate highway system 

possible, as well as the world’s safest air transportation system. It 

ensures safe and sanitary housing for 5.4 million low and extremely low-income families and individuals, over half of whom are 

elderly and/or disabled. It provides funding that is leading to the 

gradual elimination of homelessness among veterans. This bill also 

includes funding for competitive grants to communities to support 

transportation infrastructure projects of national or regional importance, as well as to improve, repair, or replace aging bridges located on critical road corridors. 

In the context of overall pressures on spending and the competing priorities that the Committee faces, this bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on transportation, housing, 

community development, and other programs and activities funded 

within it. It is consistent with the subcommittee’s allocation for fiscal year 2014. All accounts in the bill have been closely examined 

to ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to carry 

out the programs of DOT, HUD, and related agencies. Details on 

each of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee’s justifications for the funding levels are included in the report. 
4 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY 

During fiscal year 2014, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget 

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

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

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

Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports 

and joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. 

This definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget 

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

grants and discretionary grant allocations made through either bill 

or report language. For example, the percentage reductions made 

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

in the budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate 

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

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES 

The Committee includes a provision (section 405) establishing 

the authority by which funding available to the agencies funded by 

this act may be reprogrammed for other purposes. The provision 

specifically requires the advanced approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of any proposal to reprogram 

funds that: 

—creates a new program; 

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

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

been denied or restricted by the Congress; 

—proposes to redirect funds that were directed in such reports 

for a specific activity to a different purpose; 

—augments an existing PPA in excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; 

—reduces an existing PPA by $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or 

—creates, reorganizes, or restructures offices different from the 

congressional budget justifications or the table at the end of 

the Committee report, whichever is more detailed. 

The Committee retains the requirement that each agency submit 

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

authorities provided in this act. Specifically, each agency should 

provide a table for each appropriation with columns displaying the 

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

year enacted level. The table shall delineate the appropriation and 
5 

prior year enacted level both by object class and by PPA. The report must also identify items of special congressional interest. 

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

justification of increases and reductions and the specific impact the 

proposed changes will have on the budget request for the following 

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

The Committee expects each agency to manage its programs and 

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

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

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

notes that when a Department or agency submits a reprogramming 

or transfer request to the Committees on Appropriations and does 

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

responsibility of the Department to reconcile the House and Senate 

differences before proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, 

to consider the request to reprogram funds unapproved. 

The Committee would also like to clarify that this section applies 

to the Department of Transportation’s Working Capital Fund, and 

that no funds may be obligated from such funds to augment programs, projects or activities for which appropriations have been 

specifically rejected by the Congress, or to increase funds or personnel for any PPA above the amounts appropriated by this act. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS 

Budget justifications are the primary tool used by the House and 

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

that the format and presentation of budget materials is largely left 

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

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

should consult with your congressional committees beforehand to 

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

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

make appropriate and meaningful funding decisions. 

While the Committee values the inclusion of performance data 

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

2015 budget request by agencies funded under this act contain the 

customary level of detailed data and explanatory statements to 

support the appropriations requests at the level of detail contained 

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

items, agencies shall provide a detailed discussion of proposed new 

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

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

a minimum, each agency must also provide adequate justification 
6 

for funding and staffing changes for each individual office and materials that compare programs, projects, and activities that are proposed for fiscal year 2015 to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

The Committee is aware that the analytical materials required 

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

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

advance on its planned presentation for its budget justification materials in support of the fiscal year 2015 budget request. 

INCREASING EFFICIENCY

The departments, agencies, boards, and commissions funded in 

this bill can and should continue to reduce operating expenses by 

placing greater scrutiny on overhead costs. Savings can and should 

be achieved by reducing non-essential travel, office supply, rent, 

and utility costs. The Committee directs each department, agency, 

board, and commission funded in this bill to develop a plan to reduce such costs by at least 10 percent in fiscal year 2014. Plans to 

achieve these savings in fiscal year 2014 should be submitted to 

the Committee no later than 30 days after enactment of this act. 
(7) 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

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

1966 (Public Law 89–670) provides for the establishment of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The Office of the Secretary is comprised of the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary immediate and support offices; the Office of the General Counsel; the 

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

Policy; three Assistant Secretarial offices for Budget and Programs, 

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

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

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

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $102,276,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 113,109,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 109,340,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation finances the costs of policy development and 

central supervisory and coordinating functions necessary for the 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $109,340,000 for salaries 

and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and representation expenses. The recommendation is $3,769,000 less than the budget request and 

$7,064,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The accompanying bill stipulates that none of the funding provided may 

be used for the position of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. 

The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 

5 percent of the funds from any office within the Office of the Secretary to another. The Committee recommendation also continues 

language that permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the 

Office of the Secretary for salaries and expenses. 
8 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and the 

budget request: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2013 enacted 1 2014 estimate 

Immediate Office of the Secretary ...................................................... 2,613,000 2,652,000 2,652,000 

Office of the Deputy Secretary ............................................................ 982,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Office of the General Counsel ............................................................. 19,476,000 20,504,000 20,502,000 

Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy ................. 10,087,000 12,804,000 10,271,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs .............. 10,517,000 13,326,000 13,026,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Government Affairs .................. 2,495,000 2,627,000 2,627,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration .......................... 25,418,000 27,468,000 26,686,000 

Office of Public Affairs ........................................................................ 2,016,000 2,203,000 2,051,000 

Executive Secretariat ........................................................................... 1,592,000 1,714,000 1,714,000 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ................... 1,366,000 1,386,000 1,386,000 

Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response ................. 10,756,000 10,849,000 10,849,000 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................... 14,958,000 16,576,000 16,576,000 

Total, Salaries and Expenses ................................................. 102,276,000 113,109,000 109,340,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Secretary of Transportation provides leadership and has the 

primary responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and 

control of the Department. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,652,000 for fiscal year 2014 for 

the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation is 

equal to the budget request and $39,000 more than the fiscal year 

2013 enacted level. 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility of assisting 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the Immediate Office 

of the Deputy Secretary, which is equal to the budget request and 

$18,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services to the 

Office of the Secretary, including the conduct of aviation regulatory 

proceedings and aviation consumer activities, and coordinates and 

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

administrations. The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of 

the Department of Transportation and the final authority within 

the Department on all legal questions. 
9 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $20,502,000 for expenses of the Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2014. The recommended 

funding level is $2,000 less than the budget request and $1,026,000 

more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

The Committee supports the General Counsel’s efforts to enforce 

air travel consumer rights and protections, and the Committee recommendation includes an additional $2,531,000 for these activities. 

This figure equals the additional $2,500,000 provided in each of the 

past 6 years, adjusted for unavoidable increases such as inflation. 

The Committee recommendation also includes $500,000 that the 

Department requested to support work related to aviation consumer protection and required by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,271,000 for the Office of the 

Under Secretary for Policy. The recommended funding level is 

$2,533,000 less than the budget request and $184,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

The Committee recommendation does not include $1,033,000 in 

the Department’s budget request for additional positions, or 

$1,500,000 requested for a series of workshops that would serve as 

a forum for Federal agencies with enforcement responsibilities. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs serves as the 

Chief Financial Officer for the Department and provides leadership 

on all financial management matters. The primary responsibilities 

of this office include ensuring the development and justification of 

the Department’s annual budget submissions for consideration by 

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

is also responsible for the proper execution and accountability of 

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

Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. 
10 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $13,026,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The recommended level 

is $300,000 less than the budget request and $2,509,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 to establish 

a credit oversight office, as requested by the Department. The Department offers credit assistance through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program, the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program, and the Federal 

Ship Financing program, which is usually referred to as the Title 

XI program. Among these three programs, the Department oversees a portfolio of about $11,900,000,000 in direct loans and loan 

guarantees. Applications for credit assistance are complex in nature, and the Committee expects that the level of credit assistance 

provided by the Department will increase over the coming years. 

The additional resources provided under the Committee recommendation will help the Department review applications and 

maintain strong oversight over its growing portfolio. 

The Committee recommendation also includes $350,000 requested by the Department for contract support to improve the Department’s internal financial management 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises the 

Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental activities and 

on all departmental legislative initiatives and other relationships 

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

and ensures that consumer preferences, awareness, and needs are 

brought into the decisionmaking process. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $2,627,000 for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The recommended level is equal to the budget request and $132,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

and administrative management, real and personal property management, and acquisition and grants management. 
11 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $26,686,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding 

level is $782,000 less than the budget request and $1,268,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

The Committee recommendation includes $900,000 requested by 

the Department for contract support for the Office of the Senior 

Procurement Executive to conduct procurement management reviews and assess internal controls over acquisition activities and 

programs. The funding will also allow the Department to train over 

200 acquisition professionals across the Department. The Committee recommendation also includes $300,000 requested for contract support to meet executive order and legislative requirements 

related to the Department’s energy, environmental, and sustainability impacts. The Committee recommendation, however, does not 

include funding requested for additional positions, workforce plans, 

and other personnel activities. 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

preparing the Secretary for public appearances. The Office arranges media events and news conferences, and responds to media 

inquiries on the Department’s programs and other transportationrelated issues. It also provides information to the Secretary on the 

opinions and reactions of the public and news media on these programs and issues. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,051,000 for the Office of Public 

Affairs, which is $152,000 less than the budget request and 

$35,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The Committee recommendation does not include $152,000 requested for a 

new speechwriter. 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and the Deputy 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,714,000 for the Executive Secretariat. The recommendation is equal to the budget request and 

$122,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 
12 

OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization has 

primary responsibility for providing policy direction for small and 

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

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

amended. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,386,000, an amount that is equal 

to the budget request and $20,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 

enacted level. 

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

advisors apprised of current developments and long-range trends in 

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

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

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

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

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

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

and recovery support through the National Response Framework 

and operates the Department’s Crisis Management Center. The 

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,849,000 for the Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response. The recommendation is 

equal to the request and $93,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 

enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

technology, cybersecurity, privacy, and records management. 
13 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $16,576,000, which is equal to the 

budget request and $1,618,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $499,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 500,000,000 

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

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides grants and credit assistance to State and 

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

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

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

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

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

needs of urban and rural communities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

and credit assistance for investment in significant transportation 

projects, which is $51,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and $50,000,000 more than the budget request. 

Eligibility of Projects That Support Safety.—On the evening of 

Thursday, May 23, 2013, a section of the I–5 bridge collapsed into 

the Skagit River. While it is fortunate that nobody was seriously 

injured, the incident serves as a reminder of the need to invest in 

our Nation’s transportation infrastructure. For many, the collapse 

of this bridge called to mind the collapse of the I–35 West bridge 

in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which killed 13 people and injured another 145 people. 

Such high profile incidents occur in every mode of transportation. 

In 2008, for example, two trains collided near Chatsworth, California. This collision lead to the enactment of legislation that mandates the implementation of positive train control on certain rail 

lines. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, positive train control technology provides critical redundancy that 

would have prevented the collision. 

Incidents such as the collapse of a bridge or a train collision illustrate the importance of making transportation investments that 

improve safety and protect human life. Such projects, including the 

implementation of positive train control, are eligible for funding 

under this program. 

Planning Activities.—The Committee recommendation includes 

up to $35,000,000 for the planning, preparation or design of 

projects eligible for funding under this heading. 

Protections for Rural Areas.—The Committee continues to believe 

that our Federal infrastructure programs must benefit commu-
14 

nities across the country. For this reason, the Committee continues 

to require the Secretary to award grants and credit assistance in 

a manner that ensures an equitable geographic distribution of 

funds and an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban 

and rural communities. The Committee also set aside funding for 

projects located in rural areas, and included specific provisions to 

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

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

total project cost. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $4,980,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

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

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Financial Management Capital program is a multi-year business transformation initiative to streamline and standardize the financial systems and business processes across the Department. 

The initiative includes upgrading and enhancing the commercial 

software used for DOT’s financial systems, improving the cost and 

performance data provided to managers, and instituting new accounting standards and mandates. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is recommending $10,000,000 to support the Secretary’s Financial Management Capital initiative, which is equal to 

the budget request and $5,020,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 

enacted level. 

The Committee repeats instructions included in its report last 

year, directing OST to include a table in its budget justifications 

for fiscal year 2015 that specifies how much of the funding for this 

activity would be provided by each of the modal administrations. 

CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $9,980,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 6,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Cyber Security Initiative is an effort to close performance 

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

breaches. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

the Secretary’s Cyber Security Initiative, which is equal to the 
15 

budget request and $3,980,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $9,365,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 9,551,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,551,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

formulating civil rights policies and procedures for the operating 

administrations, investigating claims that small businesses were 

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

civil rights responsibilities and making final determinations on 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a funding level of $9,551,000 for the 

Office of Civil Rights. The recommendation is equal to the budget 

request and $186,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $8,982,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 9,750,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,750,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Secretary performs those research activities and 

studies which can more effectively or appropriately be conducted at 

the departmental level. This research effort supports the planning, 

research, and development activities needed to assist the Secretary 

in the formulation of national transportation policies. The program 

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

private firms. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $9,750,000 for transportation planning, research, and development, which is equal to the budget request and $768,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2013 1 .................................................................................. $172,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 2 ......................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 178,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2Proposed without limitation. 
16 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Working Capital Fund provides technical and administrative 

services to the Department’s operating administrations and other 

Federal entities. The services are centrally performed in the interest of economy and efficiency and are funded through negotiated 

agreements with Department operating administrations and other 

Federal customers and are billed on a fee-for-service basis to the 

maximum extent possible. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $178,000,000 on activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The recommended limit is $6,000,000 more than the limit enacted for fiscal year 2013. The Department requested that no limitation be included in the bill. 

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

Working Capital Fund shall apply only to the Department and not 

to services provided by other entities. The Committee directs that 

services shall be provided on a competitive basis to the maximum 

extent possible. 

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

the justifications for fiscal year 2014 provides essential information 

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

Officer, including the balance of resources provided through the 

Working Capital Fund and direct appropriations. Therefore, the 

Committee directs the Department to update this ‘‘transparency 

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

2015. 

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriations Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2013 1 ...................................................................................................... $920,000 $18,367,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ..................................................................................................... 925,000 18,367,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................. 925,000 18,367,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Minority Business Resource Center of the Office of Small 

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

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

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

of this program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $333,000 to 

cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $592,000 for administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan program. 
17 

These recommended levels add to a total funding level of $925,000 

for the Minority Business Resource Center. This total funding level 

is equal to the budget estimate and $5,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2013 enacted level. The Committee also recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of $18,367,000, which is equal to the 

budget request and the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $3,062,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 3,088,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,088,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides contractual support to assist small, 

women-owned, Native American, and other disadvantaged business 

firms in securing contracts and subcontracts for transportation-related projects that involve Federal spending. Separate funding is 

provided for these activities since this program provides grants and 

contract assistance that serve Department-wide goals and not just 

OST purposes. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,088,000 for grants and contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year 2014. The 

recommendation is equal to the budget request and $26,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations Mandatory 1 Total 

Appropriation, 2013 2 ................................................................................. $142,714,000 $50,000,000 $192,714,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 .............................................................................. 146,000,000 100,000,000 246,000,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 146,000,000 100,000,000 246,000,000 

1 From overflight fees provided to the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to section 41742 of title 49, United States Code.

2 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides funding for the Essential Air Service 

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

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

that meet certain criteria. 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) collects user fees 

that cover the air traffic control services the agency provides to aircraft that neither take off from, nor land in, the United States. 

These fees are commonly referred to as ‘‘overflight fees’’, and the 

receipts from the fees are used to help finance the EAS program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the appropriation of $146,000,000 

for the EAS program. This appropriation would be in addition to 
18 

an estimated $100,000,000 of overflight fees collected by the Federal Aviation Administration, allowing the Department to support 

a total program level for EAS of about $246,000,000. The appropriation and the level of funding from overflight fees under the 

Committee’s recommendation are both equal to the budget request. 

The total program level under the Committee’s recommendation is 

$53,286,000 more than the total program level enacted for fiscal 

year 2013; the total program level enacted for that year was comprised of an appropriation of $142,714,000 plus $50,000,000 in 

overflight fees. 

Recently enacted legislation to reauthorize the FAA allows all of 

the receipts collected from overflight fees to be used to finance the 

EAS program. The Administration currently estimates that it will 

have a total of about $116,000,000 available in fiscal year 2014 

from the collection of new overflight fees and unobligated balances 

of fees collected in prior years. The Committee recognizes that it 

is difficult to forecast the exact cost of the EAS program. By assuming the Administration uses less than $116,000,000 of fee collections in fiscal year 2014, the Committee protects the program 

against unexpected costs or low fee collections that might otherwise 

disrupt service to communities dependent on EAS. Any fees not 

spent in fiscal year 2014 will then be available to support the program the following year. 

Aircraft Size Requirement.—The Committee continues to include 

a provision that removes the requirement for 15-passenger seat aircraft, as requested by the Administration. This requirement adds 

to the cost of the EAS program because the fleet of 15-passenger 

seat aircraft continues to age and grow more difficult for airlines 

to maintain. The Committee, however, removes the requirement 

with the expectation that the Department will use this flexibility 

judiciously. The Department should use it for communities where 

historical passenger levels indicate that smaller aircraft would still 

accommodate the great majority of passengers, or for communities 

where viable proposals for service are not available. The Committee 

does not expect the Department to use this flexibility simply to 

lower costs if a community can show regular enplanement levels 

that would justify larger aircraft. 

Transfer Authority.—Under the FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act of 2012, a larger share of the funding for the EAS program is 

derived from the FAA’s collection of overflight fees. The Committee 

recognizes that funding the EAS program in this way presents the 

Department with a challenge because it is uncertain when during 

the course of the fiscal year the FAA will receive the fees and then 

be able to transfer them to the Office of the Secretary. In order to 

help the Office of the Secretary manage the timing of its EAS funding in the coming year, the Committee recommendation includes 

bill language that allows the Secretary to borrow funds from other 

programs within the Office of the Secretary. Such funds, however, 

must also be returned to the original program in fiscal year 2014 

once enough overflight fees have been transferred from the FAA. 

Passenger Levels and Subsidy Rates.—The table below reflects 

the points in the continental United States currently receiving EAS 

service, their annual subsidy rates, and their level of subsidy per 

passenger. To remain eligible for EAS service, the community’s 
19 

level of subsidy per passenger must be below $1,000. The Department determines eligibility by reviewing a community’s per passenger subsidy level in the last fiscal year of its contract. 

The table shows two communities that received per passenger subsidies greater than $1,000 during the period the data was collected. Following its regular process for such circumstances, the 

Department issued a tentative finding that the communities are no 

longer eligible under the EAS program. After issuing the tentative 

finding, the Department may receive objections to the termination 

of subsidies. A final decision on each community is expected by the 

end of June. 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER 

[Data is based on April 1, 2013, subsidy rates and calendar year 2012 passengers] 

State EAS communities 

Est. miles to 

nearest hub 

(S, M, or L) 

Average 

enplanements 

per day 

Annual subsidy 

rates at 

6/1/13 

Passenger 

totals at 

12/31/12 

Subsidy per 

passenger at 

6/1/13 

AL Muscle Shoals ................................. 60 13.1 $2,603,365 8,216 $316.87 

AR El Dorado/Camden ........................... 107 9.6 2,436,074 6,008 405.47 

AR Harrison ........................................... 86 16.9 2,080,318 10,590 196.44 

AR Hot Springs ...................................... 51 7.6 1,474,388 4,749 310.46 

AR Jonesboro ......................................... 82 14.5 1,717,781 9,107 188.62 

AZ Kingman .......................................... 121 2.9 1,168,390 1,829 638.81 

AZ Page ................................................. 282 20.6 1,559,206 12,924 120.64 

AZ Prescott ............................................ 102 16.6 1,832,233 10,405 176.09 

AZ Show Low ......................................... 154 12.1 1,719,058 7,547 227.78 

CA Crescent City ................................... 314 41.3 1,996,959 25,849 77.25 

CA El Centro .......................................... 101 17.8 1,943,751 11,144 174.42 

CA Merced ............................................. 60 10.5 1,698,878 6,602 257.33 

CA Visalia .............................................. 47 10.7 1,697,929 6,700 253.42 

CO Alamosa ........................................... 164 22.3 2,078,676 13,988 148.60 

CO Cortez ............................................... 255 24.5 2,240,766 15,349 145.99 

CO Pueblo .............................................. 36 13.7 1,592,276 8,548 186.27 

GA Athens .............................................. 72 .................... 1,553,093 .................... 1 N/A 

GA Macon .............................................. 82 .................... 1,998,696 .................... 1 N/A 

IA Burlington ........................................ 74 24.6 1,917,566 15,376 124.71 

IA Fort Dodge ....................................... 91 18.1 1,798,693 11,329 158.77 

IA Mason City ....................................... 131 18.9 1,174,468 11,814 99.41 

IA Sioux City ......................................... 88 84.1 1,512,799 52,634 28.74 

IA Waterloo ........................................... 63 57.5 1,541,824 36,026 42.80 

IL Decatur ............................................ 126 23.1 2,667,922 14,439 184.77 

IL Marion/Herrin ................................... 123 31.4 2,053,783 19,626 104.65 

IL Quincy .............................................. 111 30.9 1,946,270 19,333 100.67 

KS Dodge City ....................................... 150 18.0 1,688,598 11,262 149.94 

KS Garden City ...................................... 202 55.2 2,919,026 34,571 84.44 

KS Great Bend ...................................... 114 3.1 1,082,020 1,929 560.92 

KS Hays ................................................. 175 29.7 2,164,041 18,600 116.35 

KS Liberal/Guymon ................................ 138 17.9 2,555,150 11,196 228.22 

KS Salina .............................................. 97 7.9 1,490,479 4,955 300.80 

KY Owensboro ....................................... 105 11.5 1,529,913 7,175 213.23 

KY Paducah ........................................... 146 65.7 1,710,775 41,135 41.59 

MD Hagerstown ...................................... 78 .................... 1,785,638 .................... 1 N/A 

ME Augusta/Waterville ........................... 69 .................... 1,362,616 .................... 1 N/A 

ME Bar Harbor ....................................... 178 16.5 1,631,223 10,320 158.06 

ME Presque Isle/Houlton ........................ 270 38.7 3,892,174 24,242 160.55 

ME Rockland .......................................... 80 25.5 1,420,545 15,983 88.88 

MI Alpena .............................................. 174 40.6 3,098,472 25,404 121.97 

MI Escanaba ......................................... 112 42.8 2,833,558 26,764 105.87 

MI Hancock/Houghton ........................... 219 81.1 934,156 50,750 18.41 

MI Iron Mountain/Kingsford .................. 105 26.8 2,512,971 16,790 149.67 

MI Ironwood/Ashland ............................ 213 8.0 1,747,326 5,006 349.05 

MI Manistee .......................................... 110 .................... 2,143,294 .................... 1 N/A 

MI Muskegon ......................................... 42 54.4 1,576,067 34,029 46.32 
20 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER—Continued 

[Data is based on April 1, 2013, subsidy rates and calendar year 2012 passengers] 

State EAS communities 

Est. miles to 

nearest hub 

(S, M, or L) 

Average 

enplanements 

per day 

Annual subsidy rates at 

6/1/13 

Passenger 

totals at 

12/31/12 

Subsidy per 

passenger at 6/1/13 

MI Pellston ............................................ 213 78.5 1,055,322 49,142 21.47 

MI Sault Ste. Marie .............................. 278 63.0 1,676,136 39,424 42.52 

MN Bemidji ............................................ 158 69.1 1,338,293 43,287 30.92 

MN Brainerd ........................................... 143 46.2 1,356,764 28,948 46.87 

MN Chisholm/Hibbing ............................ 199 35.9 2,517,770 22,495 111.93 

MN International Falls ........................... 298 46.4 1,107,900 29,058 38.13 

MN Thief River Falls .............................. 305 9.1 1,881,815 5,727 328.59 

MO Cape Girardeau ............................... 127 18.7 1,469,715 11,721 125.39 

MO Fort Leonard Wood ........................... 85 26.3 2,905,794 16,440 176.75 

MO Joplin ............................................... 70 78.1 342,560 48,894 7.01 

MO Kirksville .......................................... 137 17.7 1,649,248 11,095 148.65 

MS Greenville ......................................... 124 16.3 3,522,398 10,227 344.42 

MS Hattiesburg/Laurel ........................... 85 34.4 2,965,667 21,532 137.73 

MS Meridian ........................................... 84 44.7 2,417,808 27,970 86.44 

MS Tupelo .............................................. 94 24.3 3,522,398 15,197 231.78 

MT Butte ................................................ 76 64.7 672,230 40,488 16.60 

MT Glasgow ........................................... 285 6.0 1,166,049 3,784 308.15 

MT Glendive ........................................... 223 2.3 1,193,391 1,427 836.29 

MT Havre ............................................... 230 3.8 1,162,329 2,354 493.77 

MT Lewistown ........................................ 103 1.0 1,325,733 656 2 2,020.93 

MT Miles City ......................................... 145 1.1 1,621,821 713 2 2,274.64 

MT Sidney .............................................. 272 36.3 2,932,152 22,736 128.97 

MT West Yellowstone ............................. 89 40.9 535,141 9,986 53.59 

MT Wolf Point ........................................ 293 9.2 1,502,378 5,757 260.97 

ND Devils Lake ...................................... 402 9.5 2,797,467 5,952 470.00 

ND Jamestown ....................................... 97 11.7 1,987,655 7,309 271.95 

NE Alliance ............................................ 233 5.1 1,309,865 3,192 410.36 

NE Chadron ........................................... 290 6.4 1,309,865 4,022 325.67 

NE Grand Island .................................... 138 73.4 2,215,582 45,949 48.22 

NE Kearney ............................................ 181 39.8 1,752,904 24,907 70.38 

NE McCook ............................................ 256 5.3 1,976,338 3,310 597.08 

NE North Platte ..................................... 255 26.4 1,657,510 16,538 100.22 

NE Scottsbluff ....................................... 192 28.2 1,398,351 17,667 79.15 

NH Lebanon/White River Jct. ................. 124 31.9 2,347,744 19,991 117.44 

NM Carlsbad .......................................... 149 8.6 1,397,081 5,371 260.12 

NM Clovis ............................................... 102 5.8 1,954,490 3,642 536.65 

NM Silver City/Hurley/Deming ................ 134 4.4 2,098,460 2,755 761.69 

NY Jamestown ....................................... 76 9.9 1,940,272 6,223 311.79 

NY Massena .......................................... 138 15.6 2,090,949 9,753 214.39 

NY Ogdensburg ..................................... 105 15.8 1,702,697 9,914 171.75 

NY Plattsburgh ...................................... 82 21.9 2,470,834 13,722 180.06 

NY Saranac Lake/Lake Placid ............... 132 19.0 1,366,538 11,909 114.75 

NY Watertown ........................................ 54 56.4 3,047,972 35,327 86.28 

OR Pendleton ......................................... 185 15.3 1,834,708 9,591 191.29 

PA Altoona ............................................. 112 10.9 1,998,594 6,835 292.41 

PA Bradford ........................................... 77 6.8 1,940,272 4,277 453.65 

PA DuBois ............................................. 112 16.1 2,587,029 10,055 257.29 

PA Franklin/Oil City ............................... 85 4.1 1,293,515 2,597 498.08 

PA Johnstown ........................................ 84 20.8 1,998,594 13,009 153.63 

PA Lancaster ......................................... 28 .................... 2,504,174 .................... 1 N/A 

PR Mayaguez ......................................... 105 17.7 1,198,824 11,097 108.03 

SD Aberdeen .......................................... 189 78.4 1,198,222 49,077 24.42 

SD Huron ............................................... 121 5.3 1,929,349 3,312 582.53 

SD Watertown ........................................ 207 18.4 1,710,324 11,494 148.80 

TN Jackson ............................................ 86 5.7 1,115,210 3,597 310.04 

TX Victoria ............................................ 93 .................... 2,294,036 .................... 1 N/A 

UT Cedar City ........................................ 179 32.3 2,273,395 20,224 112.41 

UT Moab ................................................ 256 13.0 1,816,486 8,127 223.51 

UT Vernal .............................................. 150 23.0 1,299,194 14,379 90.35 

VA Staunton .......................................... 113 42.0 3,394,629 26,309 129.03 

VT Rutland ............................................ 69 18.8 797,141 11,756 67.81 
21 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER—Continued 

[Data is based on April 1, 2013, subsidy rates and calendar year 2012 passengers] 

State EAS communities 

Est. miles to 

nearest hub 

(S, M, or L) 

Average 

enplanements 

per day 

Annual subsidy 

rates at 

6/1/13 

Passenger 

totals at 

12/31/12 

Subsidy per 

passenger at 

6/1/13 

WI Eau Claire ........................................ 92 64.6 1,733,576 40,424 42.88 

WI Rhinelander ..................................... 190 35.1 1,519,619 21,996 69.09 

WV Beckley ............................................. 168 8.3 2,512,494 5,198 483.36 

WV Clarksburg ....................................... 96 18.2 1,728,125 11,423 151.28 

WV Greenbrier/White Sulphur Springs ... 166 26.8 3,484,710 16,782 207.65 

WV Morgantown ..................................... 75 29.8 1,728,125 18,650 92.66 

WV Parkersburg/Marietta ....................... 110 24.8 2,587,029 15,515 166.74 

WY Cody ................................................. 108 90.0 352,058 56,359 6.25 

WY Laramie ............................................ 145 22.7 1,635,346 14,211 115.08 

WY Worland ............................................ 161 8.9 1,987,148 5,556 357.66 

1 Communities may not have any passenger data due to a service hiatus, an airport closure, a carrier transition, or incorrect or missing 

data. The Department does not pay any subsidy for the time that an air carrier is not providing service to the community. 2 On March 28, the Department issued a tentative finding that Lewistown and Miles City, Montana, are no longer eligible under the EAS 

program. A final decision is expected by the end of June. 

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... $15,949,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 14,765,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,765,000 

1 Appropriations for fiscal year 2013 were provided for a separate agency within the Department of Transportation, whereas the budget request and Committee recommendation include 

funds for an office within the Office of the Secretary to perform the same activities. 2Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology will take over the responsibilities previously held by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. The responsibilities include coordinating, facilitating, and reviewing the Department’s research and development programs and activities; coordinating and developing positioning, navigation and timing [PNT] 

technology; maintaining PNT policy, coordination and spectrum 

management; managing the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System; and overseeing and providing direction to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the Intelligent Transportation 

Systems Joint Program Office, the University Transportation Centers program, the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

and the Transportation Safety Institute. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,765,000 for 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology. 

This amount is equal to the budget request, and $1,184,000 less 

than the amount provided to the Research and Innovative Technology Administration to perform the same activities in fiscal year 

2013. The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the budget request and the fiscal 

year 2013 enacted level: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2013 enacted 1 2014 estimate 

Salaries and administrative expenses ................................................ $6,960,000 $6,547,000 $6,547,000 
22 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2013 enacted 1 2014 estimate 

Alternative fuels research and development ....................................... 498,000 499,000 499,000 

Research, development and technology coordination ......................... 508,000 509,000 509,000 

Nationwide differential global positioning system .............................. 7,585,000 5,600,000 5,600,000 

Positioning, navigation and timing ..................................................... 398,000 1,610,000 1,610,000 

Total ........................................................................................ 15,949,000 14,765,000 14,765,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

Intelligent Transportation Systems [ITS].—Intelligent Transportation Systems are developed to improve the safety and efficiency 

of our transportation network. The Committee recommendation includes $100,000,000 for ITS research, technology transfer and evaluations, and program support. This funding is provided through 

the Federal Highway Administration, and the level is consistent 

with the most recent authorization law, the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act. The ITS Joint Program Office coordinates the Department’s ITS initiatives among the Federal 

Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the 

Maritime Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. 

The Department’s efforts include work on vehicle-to-vehicle and 

vehicle-to-infrastructure communications. Such communications increase situational awareness, and can reduce or eliminate crashes 

through the use of driver advisories, driver warnings, and vehicle 

or infrastructure controls. With safety applications for light vehicles, trucks, buses, and fleets of all kinds, vehicle-to-vehicle communications have the potential to address up to 80 percent of crash 

scenarios that involve unimpaired drivers. As result, vehicle-to-vehicle communications may prevent tens of thousands of automobile 

crashes every year. Vehicle-to-infrastructure communications have 

the potential to address an additional 12 percent of the crash scenarios that involve unimpaired drivers. 

The private sector will continue to develop technologies that have 

market demand or a clear business case. However, Federal leadership is needed to apply vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications to safety improvements. The Federal Government supports collaboration among automotive manufacturers, 

public sector agencies, and their suppliers, and it is developing 

standards that ensure the interoperability of vehicle-to-vehicle and 

vehicle-to-infrastructure systems produced throughout the industry. 

University Transportation Centers.—The Committee recommendation includes $72,500,000 for University Transportation 

Centers. This funding is provided through the Federal Highway 

Administration, and the level is consistent with the Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act. 

Small Business Innovation Research.—The Small Business Innovation Research [SBIR] program encourages domestic small businesses to engage in Federal research or research and development 

activities that have the potential for commercialization. The Volpe 

Center directs the Department’s SBIR program due to its extensive 

background in innovative programs such as technology transfer, cooperative research and development agreements, outreach projects 
23 

involving a cross-section of the transportation community, and 

technical assistance to private organizations and State and local 

governments. The Committee recognizes the importance of the 

SBIR program and its success in commercialization from Federal 

funded research and development projects. Through its work, the 

SBIR program creates jobs in the smallest firms. The Committee 

therefore encourages the Department to place an increased focus on 

awarding SBIR awards to firms with fewer than 50 people. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF

TRANSPORTATION

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

reprogramming of funds, including congressional notification. 

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

Section 103 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation or his 

designee to engage in activities with States and State legislatures 

to consider proposals related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities. 

Section 104 allows the Department of Transportation to make 

use of the Working Capital Fund in providing transit benefits to 

Federal employees. 

Section 105 places simple administrative requirements on the 

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

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

minutes of each meeting. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for the safe 

movement of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system 

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

Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 

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

to navigation; arrange for research and development to improve 

such aids; issue airworthiness certificates for aircraft and major 

aircraft components; and investigate civil aviation accidents. In the 

Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, these activities were transferred to 

a new, independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority. 

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

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

Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] 

and became one of several modal administrations within DOT. The 

Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of 

the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased to exist in 1984. 
24 

Responsibility for the investigation of civil aviation accidents was 

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The total recommended funding level for the FAA for fiscal year 

2014 amounts to $15,920,817,000 including new budget authority, 

a limitation on the obligation of contract authority, and a rescission 

of unobligated balances. This funding level is $370,019,000 more 

than the budget request and $20,937,000 more than the fiscal year 

2013 enacted level. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for fiscal year 2014 in comparison to the budget request and 

the fiscal year 2013 enacted level: 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2013 enacted 1 2014 estimate 

Operations ................................................................................ $9,634,089,000 $9,707,000,000 $9,707,000,000 

Facilities and equipment ......................................................... 2,725,270,000 2,777,798,000 2,730,000,000 

Emergency funds for facilities and equipment ....................... 30,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Research, engineering and development ................................ 167,221,000 166,000,000 160,000,000 

Rescission of research, engineering and development 

funds ................................................................................... .............................. .............................. ¥26,183,000 

Grants-in-aid for airports ........................................................ 3,343,300,000 2,900,000,000 3,350,000,000 

Total ............................................................................ 15,899,880,000 15,550,798,000 15,920,817,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $9,634,089,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 9,707,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,707,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

and development of standards, rules and regulations governing 
25 

the physical fitness of airmen, as well as the administration of 

an aviation medical research program; 

—the office of commercial space transportation; and 

—headquarters and support offices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $9,707,000,000 for FAA 

operations. This funding level is equal to the budget request, and 

$72,911,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The Committee recommendation derives $6,121,000,000 of the appropriation 

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

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

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

control system. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and fiscal year 2013 enacted level: 

FAA OPERATIONS 

Budget estimate, 

2014 

Committee 

recommendation 

Air traffic organization ............................................................................................... $7,311,790,000 $7,311,790,000 

Aviation safety ............................................................................................................ 1,204,777,000 1,216,777,000 

Commercial space transportation .............................................................................. 16,011,000 17,011,000 

Finance and management .......................................................................................... 807,646,000 802,520,000 

NextGen and operations planning .............................................................................. 59,782,000 59,477,000 

Staff offices ................................................................................................................ 199,801,000 192,780,000 

Human resource management .................................................................................... 107,193,000 106,645,000 

Total ............................................................................................................... 9,707,000,000 9,707,000,000 

FAA Administrative Expenses.—The Committee continues to expect the FAA to use its Federal resources judiciously, and does not 

believe that providing retention bonuses to the same employee for 

repeated years in a row represents a responsible use of those taxpayer dollars. A retention bonus should offer a short-term enticement to stay at the FAA for employees possessing critical and 

hard-to-replace skills, thereby giving the agency extra time to find 

a suitable replacement. When given every year to a broad spectrum 

of employees, however, a retention bonus acts as a loophole in the 

Federal administrative process, allowing the FAA to give a permanent pay raise to certain employees without being held accountable 

to the regular administrative requirements. The Committee is still 

concerned about the FAA’s failure to manage this authority responsibly, and retains bill language directing the Department’s Assistant Secretary for Administration to be the approving official for 

any request for a retention bonus by the FAA during fiscal year 

2014. 

Contract Towers.—The Committee recommendation provides a 

total of $140,350,000 for the contract tower program, which includes $130,000,000 for the base program and $10,350,000 for the 

contract tower cost share program. This total funding level is sufficient to keep all 251 current contract towers open throughout fiscal 
26 

year 2014. The Committee also retains language that limits contributions in the contract tower cost share program to 20 percent 

of total costs. 

Air Traffic Controller Workforce.—The Committee remains committed to the critical workforces of the Federal Aviation Administration, including its air traffic controllers. The Committee notes, 

however, that the controller workforce has been undermined by the 

combination of a full-year continuing resolution and the sequestration of funds during fiscal year 2013. 

To live with its budget constraints this year, in April, the FAA 

began to furlough almost its entire workforce for 1 day each pay 

period. These furloughs resulted in significant air traffic delays 

across the country, and the Congress took notice. It enacted the Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013 to stop the furloughs and return 

air traffic operations back to its regular levels. While this act provided some relief for the FAA, it did not address the full damage 

of sequestration to the agency’s budget. The FAA continues to operate under a hiring freeze and with severely reduced training resources, including resources for the training necessary to certify 

new air traffic controllers. As a result of these measures, the agency is losing controllers through attrition at a time when about a 

quarter of all certified controllers are eligible to retire. This situation is unsustainable for the FAA and the safety of our aviation 

system. 

The Committee recommendation includes sufficient funding to 

maintain the FAA’s workforce of air traffic controllers. The recommended funding level will allow the FAA to add new hires to its 

workforce as its current controllers retire or leave the agency for 

other reasons. The funding level will also allow the FAA to train 

its new hires and developmental controllers. 

Aviation Inspector Workforce.—Aviation safety inspectors are another critical workforce that has been hurt by the combination of 

a full-year continuing resolution and the sequestration of funds this 

past year. Yet, recent events with lithium-ion batteries have underscored the importance of a strong inspector workforce in protecting 

the safety of our air transportation system. The Committee recommendation therefore includes an additional $12,000,000 for aviation safety activities to strengthen the FAA’s workforce of safety inspectors, critical certification staff and necessary support staff. The 

Committee directs the FAA to use this funding to increase its 

workforce by not fewer than 100 positions, and to dedicate an appropriate portion of this funding to training activities. 

In previous years, the Committee has included language in the 

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

purpose. These staff increases remain a high priority, and the Committee recommendations dedicate scarce resources to the inspector 

workforce. Nevertheless, the Committee recognizes that this bill 

language diminishes the flexibility of the FAA. With resources so 

scarce, the Committee does not believe that it is in the best interest of the FAA to put such strong limitations on the use of its funding. The Committee also believes that it can best protect the public 

interest by ensuring that taxpayer dollars can always be put to the 

highest priority, even if those priorities shift during the course of 
27 

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

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

identifies the staff increases for aviation safety activities as a congressional item of interest and expects the FAA to use the funding 

increases for their intended purpose. Furthermore, the Committee 

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

Appropriations a request for approval before redirecting any of the 

funding provided for staff increases to any other activity. 

The Committee also supports the FAA’s efforts to implement a 

system approach to aviation safety. Under this approach, the FAA 

will make better use of data analysis to identify risks and target 

resources to the highest priorities. Aviation safety inspectors will 

always be the foundation of the FAA’s safety oversight, and a system approach will allow the FAA workforce to conduct its oversight 

effectively without constraining the growth and innovation of the 

aviation industry. The Committee recognizes the progress that FAA 

has made in implementing a system approach to its flight standards work, and the Committee urges the FAA to continue its efforts 

to achieve a fuller implementation of its new approach. The Committee believes that the FAA also needs to prioritize implementing 

a system approach in its aircraft certification work. 

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act identified two other 

areas where the FAA must improve its certification process. Section 312 of the act requires the FAA to develop a more streamlined 

certification process, and section 313 requires the FAA to address 

the agency’s inconsistent interpretation of safety regulations. Each 

of these sections requires the FAA to consult with aviation stakeholders, assess the problem, and issue a report with recommendations and a plan for implementing those recommendations. Both reports are now overdue. Given the importance of these issues, the 

Committee is disappointed that the Administration did not respond 

to these deadlines in a timely manner. 

The Committee urges the FAA to issue both reports due under 

sections 312 and 313 immediately. The Committee also instructs 

the FAA to submit to the Congress reports that describe the agency’s progress in implementing the section 312 and section 313 recommendations 1 year after the submission of the original reports, 

and to submit the update reports not later than 18 months after 

the submission of the original reports. These issues are complex in 

nature, and the Committee understands that the FAA will not be 

able to achieve its most ambitious goals within a year. However, 

the Committee also believes that 1 year is long enough to show 

progress and report on it. 

Unmanned Aerial Systems.—The development of unmanned aerial systems [UAS] offers benefits in a wide variety of applications, 

including law enforcement and border patrol, precision agriculture, 

wildfire mapping, weather monitoring, oil and gas exploration, disaster management, and aerial imaging. The UAS industry also presents an opportunity for substantial domestic job growth. The FAA 

is taking important steps toward integrating UAS into the national 

airspace, including implementing a UAS test site program to help 

the agency gather critical safety data. 

The expanded use of UAS also presents the FAA with significant 

challenges. The Committee is concerned that, without adequate 
28 

safeguards, expanded use of UAS by both governmental and nongovernmental entities will pose risks to individuals’ privacy. The 

FAA has recognized the importance of addressing privacy concerns 

by requiring that UAS test sites have privacy policies in place before test flights begin. However, as the FAA looks to integrate UAS 

into the national airspace, a more comprehensive approach to privacy may be warranted. The United States Constitution, Federal, 

and various State privacy laws apply to the operation of UAS, but 

in consideration of the rapid advancement of technology in this 

area, the Committee questions whether current laws offer sufficient 

protections to adequately protect individuals. 

FAA’s oversight and regulatory authority over the national airspace places the agency in a position to work with other agencies 

on addressing privacy concerns. To that end, the Committee directs 

the FAA to collaborate with other Federal agencies in evaluating 

the impact that broader use of UAS in the national airspace could 

have on individual privacy. Furthermore, the Committee includes 

bill language that prohibits the FAA from issuing final regulations 

on the integration of UAS into the national airspace until the Secretary submits a report detailing the results of such collaboration. 

The Committee expects this report to address the application of existing privacy law to governmental and non-governmental entities; 

identify gaps in existing law, especially with regard to the use and 

retention of personally identifiable information by both governmental and non-governmental entities; and recommend next steps 

in how the FAA or other Federal agencies can address the impact 

of widespread use of UAS on individual privacy. The Committee directs the FAA to submit this report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than 1 year after enactment of 

this act. 

Aeronautical Navigation Products.—The Committee remains concerned that Aeronautical Navigation Products [AeroNav] continues 

to move forward with plans to impose a per person charge and 

erect a digital copyright on digital products produced by the FAA 

for the public benefit. The FAA has previously made these products 

available for download from its Web site without charge. The Committee is also concerned that the proposed scheme will be used to 

support the declining paper chart services by charging those that 

are moving to a digital format. In contrast to AeroNav’s efforts, Executive Order 13642 was issued on May 14, 2013, to make government data available to foster entrepreneurship and innovation. 

This order builds on another order issued in 2012 to open up government systems with public interfaces for commercial application 

providers. 

With these concerns in mind, the Committee has included bill 

language that prohibits AeroNav from implementing new charges 

on AeroNav products until the FAA provides the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations a report that describes (1) the estimated cost of producing only its digital products, on a product-byproduct 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) 
29 

how AeroNav’s actions conflict with the direction in Executive 

Order 13642 to support open data for entrepreneurship, innovation, 

and scientific discovery. 

Automated Weather Observation Systems [AWOS].—AWOS systems provide real-time weather information, including specific data 

on visibility, cloud height, temperature, dew point, wind speed, 

wind direction, pressure, and precipitation. With this information 

in hand, pilots are able to use an airport more often during marginal weather conditions than would otherwise be possible. 

The FAA currently requires that a licensed technician conduct an 

on-site inspection of each AWOS system on a quarterly basis. 

These inspections entail an additional cost for the airport, and can 

be a heavy burden on small general aviation airports. Remote monitoring technology could allow an airport to inspect AWOS systems 

on a continuous basis without having to pay for on-site inspections. 

The Committee directs the FAA to review allowing automated remote monitoring of AWOS systems as an alternative to quarterly 

on-site inspections at general aviation airports. The Committee further directs the FAA to submit a report on its findings to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than 90 

days after enactment of this act. 

FAA Public Hearing.—The Committee remains concerned with 

the proposed modifications to the Condor 1 and Condor 2 military 

operating areas and encourages FAA to continue working with its 

partner agencies by holding a public hearing with representatives 

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

and the record of decision. The Committee recognizes that the Air 

National Guard, as the lead agency under the NEPA process, has 

sought to meet the minimum legal requirements for public participation and comment. However, the Committee remains troubled 

with how the authorization of low-altitude military training in the 

proposed airspace would affect areas that significantly contribute to 

the local economy and areas that are culturally and environmentally sensitive. Furthermore, the Committee notes the FAA is 

the only Federal agency that can modify special airspace and that 

the FAA may adopt the Air National Guard’s EIS in whole, or in 

part, once the Final EIS has been issued. In addition, the Committee directs the FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to the issuance of a record of decision 

regarding the modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 military 

operations areas that includes a summary of any public meeting 

and hearing and a list of the comments, questions, and responses 

presented at these meetings and hearings. 

Human Intervention Motivation Study and the Flight Attendant 

Drug and Alcohol Program.—The Human Intervention and Motivation Study [HIMS] is a substance abuse program that provides help 

to airline pilots in a way that protects their careers as well as air 

safety. The HIMS program is an industry-wide effort that involves 

airlines, pilot unions, and the FAA in the identification of impaired 

pilots, their treatment, and their return to the cockpit. 

Traditional programs to address substance abuse have relied on 

workplace supervisors. However, airline pilots perform most of 

their duties among their peers, without direct supervision. The 
30 

HIMS program works because it uses peer identification and intervention. The HIMS program provides educational materials, holds 

seminars, and conducts outreach to the pilot community. 

Flight attendants are also safety professionals who, like pilots, 

perform their duties with little management oversight. The Flight 

Attendant Drug and Alcohol Program [FADAP] is designed specifically for the needs of flight attendants, and with its emphasis on 

peer identification and intervention, it operates much like the 

HIMS program. FADAP is an essential tool to help flight attendants who may be abusing alcohol or drugs. The Committee recommendation includes $2,103,000 to continue 

funding for HIMS and FADAP over the fiscal year 2014–2016 period. 

Use of Personal Electronic Devices on Airplanes.—The Federal 

Aviation Administration initiated a study on the use of personal 

electronic devices (PEDs) in the spring of 2012. An Aviation Rulemaking Committee has been established to make recommendations 

to the FAA that will clarify and provide guidance on allowing additional PEDs without compromising the continued safe operation of 

the aircraft. 

The existing rules regarding PEDs have gone essentially unchanged for decades, even though technology has radically changed. 

Air travelers have expressed interest in using PEDs during taxis, 

takeoffs, and landings. The Committee believes this issue needs to 

be resolved, encourages the Aviation Rulemaking Committee to 

submit its final report as soon as possible, and urges the FAA to 

act on those recommendations expeditiously. 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... $2,755,270,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 2,777,798,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,730,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2 Includes emergency funding of $30,000,000 in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 

(division A of Public Law 113–2). 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Facilities and Equipment appropriation provides funding for 

modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway facilities, 

equipment, and systems. The appropriation also finances major 

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

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

demands of aeronautical activity and remain in accordance with 

the Federal Aviation Administration’s comprehensive 5-year capital 

investment plan [CIP]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,730,000,000 

for the Facilities and Equipment account of the Federal Aviation 

Administration. The recommended level is $47,798,000 less than 

the budget request and $25,270,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 
31 

enacted level. Excluding emergency funding, the Committee recommendation is $4,730,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted 

level. 

Budget Activities Format.—The Committee directs that the fiscal 

year 2015 budget request for the Facilities and Equipment account 

conform to the same organizational structure of budget activities as 

displayed below. 

The Committee’s recommended distribution of funds for each of 

the budget activities funded by the appropriation follows: 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

Budget estimate, 2014 Committee recommendation 

Activity 1, Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation: 

Advanced Technology Development and Prototype ........................................................ $33,500,000 $32,000,000 

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

William J. Hughes Technical Center Facilities .............................................................. 12,000,000 12,000,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Infrastructure Sustainment ................................. 6,000,000 6,000,000 

Data Communications in support of Next Generation Air Transportation System ....... 115,450,000 115,450,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Technology Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development ...................................................................................................... 24,674,500 20,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—System Development ................................... 61,500,000 56,500,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Trajectory Based Operations ....................... 18,000,000 17,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Reduce Weather Impact .............................. 6,000,000 5,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Arrivals/Departures at High Density Airports ........................................................................................................................... 7,000,000 6,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Collaborative ATM ....................................... 41,000,000 40,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Flexible Terminals and Airports .................. 15,000,000 14,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—System Network Facilities ........................... 9,000,000 8,750,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Future Facilities .......................................... 10,000,000 10,000,000 

Performance Based Navigation ..................................................................................... 32,200,000 32,200,000 

Activity 2, Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment: 

En Route Programs: 

En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM] ................................................................ 26,100,000 86,100,000 

En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM]—D Position Upgrade and System Enhancements ............................................................................................................... 64,974,000 34,974,000 

En Route Communications Gateway [ECG] ................................................................... 2,200,000 2,200,000 

Next Generation Weather Radar [NEXRAD] .................................................................... 4,100,000 4,100,000 

ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements ..................................................... 53,000,000 40,000,000 

Air Traffic Management [ATM] ...................................................................................... 13,800,000 13,800,000 

Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure ................................................................... 5,500,000 5,500,000 

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

Voice Switch and Control System [VSCS] ..................................................................... 20,000,000 20,000,000 

Oceanic Automation System .......................................................................................... 4,800,000 4,800,000 

Next Generation Very High Frequency A/G Communications System [NEXCOM] .......... 20,250,000 20,250,000 

System-Wide Information Management [SWIM] ............................................................ 70,500,000 70,500,000 

ADS–B NAS Wide Implementation ................................................................................. 282,100,400 282,100,400 

Wind Hazard Detection Equipment ................................................................................ 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Weather and Radar Processor [WARP] .......................................................................... 700,000 700,000 

Collaborative Air Traffic Management Technologies ..................................................... 29,390,800 29,390,600 

Colorado ADS–B WAM Cost Share ................................................................................. 3,400,000 3,400,000 

Tactical Flow Time Based Flow Management [TBFM] ................................................... 10,500,000 10,500,000 

ATC Beacon Interrogator [ATCBI]—Sustainment .......................................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 

NextGen Weather Processors .......................................................................................... 23,510,000 23,510,000 

Terminal Programs: 

Airport Surface Detection Equipment—Model X [ASDE–X] .......................................... 12,100,000 12,100,000 

Terminal Doppler Weather Radar [TDWR]—Provide ..................................................... 3,600,000 3,600,000 

Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System [STARS] (TAMR Phase 1) .......... 45,500,000 47,300,000 

Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program (TAMR Phase 3) .............. 136,550,000 144,500,000 

Terminal Automation Program ....................................................................................... 2,600,000 2,600,000 

Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities—Replace .......................................................... 71,998,300 69,000,000 

ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control [TRACON] Facilities—Improve ....................... 53,200,000 49,000,000 

Terminal Voice Switch Replacement [TVSR] ................................................................. 5,000,000 5,000,000 
32 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Budget estimate, 2014 Committee recommendation 

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

Airport Surveillance Radar [ASR–9] Service Life Extension Program [SLEP] ............... 10,900,000 10,900,000 

Terminal Digital Radar [ASR–11] Technology Refresh ................................................. 19,400,000 19,400,000 

Runway Status Lights [RWSL] ....................................................................................... 35,250,000 35,250,000 

National Airspace System Voice Switch [NVS] .............................................................. 16,000,000 16,000,000 

Integrated Display System [IDS] .................................................................................... 4,100,000 4,100,000 

Remote Monitoring and Maintenance System [RMLS] Technology Refresh .................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Mode S Service Life Extension Program [SLEP] ............................................................ 7,300,000 7,300,000 

Surveillance Interface Modernization [SIM] ................................................................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 

Tower Flight Data Manager [TFDM] ............................................................................... 23,500,000 23,500,000 

Voice Recorder Replacement Program [VRRP] .............................................................. 6,200,000 6,200,000 

Precision Runway Monitor Replacement [PRMR] .......................................................... 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Integrated Terminal Weather System [ITWS] ................................................................. 1,300,000 1,300,000 

Flight Service Programs: 

Automated Surface Observing System [ASOS] .............................................................. 10,000,000 10,000,000 

Future Flight Service Program ....................................................................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Alaska Flight Service Facilities Modernization [AFSFM] ................................................ 2,900,000 2,900,000 

Weather Camera Program .............................................................................................. 1,200,000 1,200,000 

Landing and Navigational Aids Programs: 

VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range [VOR] with Distance Measuring Equipment 

[DME] ......................................................................................................................... 8,300,000 8,300,000 

Instrument Landing System [ILS] Establish/Expand ..................................................... 7,000,000 7,000,000 

Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS] for GPS ........................................................ 109,000,000 100,000,000 

Runway Visual Range [RVR] ......................................................................................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 

Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP] ........................................... 3,000,000 4,000,000 

Distance Measuring Equipment [DME] .......................................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000

Visual Navaids—Establish/Expand ............................................................................... 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Instrument Flight Procedures Automation [IFPA] .......................................................... 4,500,000 4,500,000 

Navigation and Landing Aids—Service Life Extension Program [SLEP] ...................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 

VASI Replacement-Replace with Precision Approach Indicator [PAPI] ......................... 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Global Positioning System [GPS] Civil Requirements ................................................... 20,000,000 15,000,000 

Runway Safety Areas—Navigational Mitigation ........................................................... 38,000,000 38,000,000 

Other Air Traffic Control Facilities Programs: 

Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring .......................................................... 8,700,000 8,700,000 

Unstaffed Infrastructure Sustainment ........................................................................... 33,000,000 30,000,000 

Aircraft Related Equipment Program ............................................................................ 10,400,000 10,400,000 

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

Alaskan Satellite Telecommunications Infrastructure [ASTI] ........................................ 11,000,000 11,000,000 

Facilities Decommissioning ........................................................................................... 6,500,000 6,500,000 

Electrical Power Systems—Sustain/Support ................................................................. 85,000,000 70,075,000 

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

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

Support Equipment: 

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

Aviation Safety Analysis System [ASAS] ........................................................................ 12,700,000 12,700,000 

Logistics Support Systems and Facilities [LSSF] .......................................................... 10,000,000 10,000,000 

NAS Recovery Communications [RCOM] ........................................................................ 12,000,000 12,000,000

Facility Security Risk Management ............................................................................... 15,000,000 15,000,000 

Information Security ....................................................................................................... 13,000,000 13,000,000 

System Approach for Safety Oversight [SASO] .............................................................. 9,500,000 9,500,000 

Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment [ASKME] ................................... 12,200,000 12,200,000 

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

Aerospace Medical Equipment Needs [AMEN] ............................................................... 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing ....................................................... 15,000,000 15,000,000 

National Test Equipment Program ................................................................................ 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Mobile Assets Management Program ............................................................................ 3,000,000 3,000,000

Aerospace Medicine Safety Information System [AMSIS] .............................................. 3,900,000 3,900,000 

Training Equipment and Facilities: 

Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization ......................................................... 12,300,000 12,300,000 

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

Activity 4, Facilities and Equipment Mission Support: 

System Engineering and Development Support ............................................................ 35,600,000 35,600,000 
33 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Budget estimate, 2014 Committee recommendation 

Program Support Leases ................................................................................................ 42,100,000 42,100,000 

Logistics Support Services [LSS] ................................................................................... 11,500,000 11,500,000 

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center Leases .................................................................. 17,900,000 17,900,000

Transition Engineering Support ..................................................................................... 16,500,000 16,500,000 

Technical Support Services Contract [TSSC] ................................................................. 25,000,000 25,000,000 

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

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development [CAASD] ....................................... 70,000,000 70,000,000 

Aeronautical Information Management Program ........................................................... 9,050,000 9,050,000 

Activity 5, Personnel and Related Expenses: 

Personnel and Related Expenses ................................................................................... 482,000,000 468,000,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................... 2,777,798,000 2,730,000,000 

Cyber Security.—The primary mission of the FAA is to protect 

the safety of our aviation system, and to fulfill this mission, it must 

protect the security of its own computer systems. This responsibility grows more challenging as the FAA modernizes its air traffic 

control system. FAA’s next generation system will not rely on radars and closed information systems; instead it will make use of 

satellite technology and open computer networks that can manage 

and share data more efficiently. These same innovations, however, 

will make the FAA’s air traffic control system more vulnerable to 

cyber attacks. For that reason, it is critical that the FAA continually assess its vulnerabilities and effectively addresses its risks. 

The Department’s budget reflects the importance of protecting 

cyber security at the FAA. For the entire Department of Transportation, the Committee recommendation includes $136,339,000 to 

improve cyber security, a funding level that is equal to the budget 

request. Of this total, $105,195,000—or 77 percent—is for improving cyber security at the FAA. 

Given the importance of securing the FAA’s computer systems, 

the Committee is concerned about recent reports from the Office of 

Inspector General [OIG]. This past December, the OIG published 

a report describing how the FAA had not adequately implemented 

security requirements for its En Route Automation Modernization 

System. The report follows another published in 2011, which describes how the FAA had not adequately implemented security requirements for its Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast 

System. The two programs discussed in these reports are fundamental parts of the FAA’s efforts to modernize its air traffic control 

system. 

A new Chief Information Officer [CIO] serves in the Office of the 

Secretary. The Committee supports his efforts to reach out to CIOs 

at each of the modal administrations and discuss the Department’s 

cyber security needs. The Committee notes, however, that the Program Management Office at the FAA serves an important role in 

the development of the FAA’s computer systems. This office was 

created in order to improve the agency’s management of its acquisitions programs, including programs that develop complex computer 

systems. The Committee therefore expects the Vice President of 

Program Management to coordinate with the CIO for the FAA and 

for the Department to ensure the security of FAA’s systems is 

made a high priority. 
34 

Performance-Based Navigation.—The Committee provides $32,200,000 for Performance-Based Navigation [PBN], which is 

equal to the budget request. The Committee believes that the use 

of PBN procedures will give users of the national airspace critical 

near-term benefits that support the FAA’s modernization effort. 

However, aviation stakeholders, the Inspector General, and the 

Government Accountability Office have all expressed concern over 

the FAA’s implementation of the PBN program. The FAA has not 

yet developed an efficient way to produce PBN procedures, and the 

agency has been unable to integrate published procedures into its 

management of air traffic. 

The Committee directs FAA to continue implementing section 

213 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which establishes a number of requirements for the FAA related to PBN. 

The Committee further directs FAA to provide a letter report on its 

progress in meeting the requirements of section 213, including the 

estimated fuel and carbon dioxide emissions savings from any new 

PBN procedure designed or implemented in 2012 and 2013, to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 31, 

2014. In addition, upon completion of the FAA’s pilot program on 

the use of third-party procedures, the Committee expects the FAA 

to present to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations 

a complete evaluation of the pilot program, including an analysis 

of costs and benefits of using third parties to develop PBN procedures. 

En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM].—The FAA established ERAM to replace the computer system for air traffic control 

facilities that manage high-altitude traffic. Modernizing this network is critical to the effective management of air traffic, and the 

program is essential to moving the FAA into the next generation 

of air traffic control. 

The Committee recognizes that the FAA has improved its management of ERAM, addressing many of the concerns that led to significant cost increases and schedule delays just a few years ago. 

However, the budget and schedule of ERAM is still subject to risk. 

Testifying before the Committee this past April, the Inspector General described several of these risks. He noted, for example, that 

the FAA will likely encounter new problems when it deploys ERAM 

at its busiest facilities. He also noted that the FAA spends about 

$12,000,000 each month on the capital needs of ERAM, and that 

the current budget cannot afford continued spending at this rate. 

Furthermore, the Office of the Inspector General has previously reported that, while the FAA increased the ERAM budget by 

$330,000,000, actual cost increases could reach as much as 

$500,000,000 if problems persist with the program. 

In addition to the risks identified by the Inspector General, the 

temporary furlough of FAA employees due to sequestration disrupted the implementation of ERAM this year. In order to support 

the deployment of the program during fiscal year 2014, and avoid 

further risk to the program’s schedule, the Committee recommendation includes $86,100,000 for ERAM in fiscal year 2014, 

an increase of $60,000,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee develops its recommendations in a constrained 

budget environment, and so the additional funds that the Com-
35 

mittee recommends for the base ERAM program come at a cost to 

other activities in the FAA’s budget request. For example, the Committee recommendation includes $34,974,000 for D-position upgrades and system enhancements to the ERAM program, a decrease of $30,000,000 from the budget request. 

Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement [TAMR].—The 

Committee recommendation includes $47,300,000 for the first 

phase of TAMR, an increase of $1,800,000 above the budget request. The recommendation also includes $144,500,000 for the 

third phase of TAMR, an increase of $7,950,000 above the budget 

request. The Committee recognizes that the temporary furlough of 

FAA employees due to sequestration disrupted the implementation 

of TAMR this year, and recommends these increases to support the 

program and avoid further risk to the program’s schedule. 

Under the TAMR program, the FAA is replacing the computer 

systems used for facilities that manage air traffic coming into and 

leaving airports. Like ERAM, the TAMR program is essential for 

the FAA to move forward with its effort to modernize the air traffic 

control system; also like ERAM, TAMR has a history of cost overruns and schedule delays. 

This past May, the OIG issued a report on TAMR that questions 

whether the FAA has developed a reliable schedule and budget for 

the program. The OIG asserts that the FAA did not complete all 

of the risk assessments required by its own acquisition management system before approving the program schedule, and that the 

FAA ignored important elements of the program when it approved 

the program’s cost baseline. The FAA has concurred or partially 

concurred with every one of the OIG’s recommendations, and the 

agency continues to provide additional information on how it will 

fulfill those recommendations. 

The Committee expects that the FAA’s continued adherence to 

OIG recommendations will help keep the program within its schedule and budget. While the Committee understands that the program remains within its current baseline, the agency’s track record 

on its acquisition programs does not give comfort to the Committee. 

Runway Status Lights.—The Committee recommends 

$32,250,000 for runway status lights, which is equal to the budget 

request. This program improves safety by installing runway and 

taxiway lights that signal when it is unsafe to enter, cross, or begin 

takeoff on a runway. 

The FAA planned to install runway status lights at a total of 23 

airports, but the Committee understands the agency is facing cost 

increases that will make it difficult to complete the original scope 

of work under the current baseline. While the FAA considers alternatives for moving forward with this program, the Committee is 

concerned that it will simply reduce the number of sites where the 

agency will install runway status lights without a plan for addressing the remaining original locations. This approach would allow the 

FAA to claim that it is staying within its budget, but in fact fewer 

airports would receive an important technology for preventing runway incursions under the FAA’s current baseline. 

Some of the deadliest airplane accidents occur on the ground, 

and not in the air. For this reason, the National Transportation 

Safety Board [NTSB] continues to include the improvement of run-
36 

way safety on its ‘‘most wanted’’ list. In fact, the NTSB specifically 

cites runway safety lights as an effective way to improve runway 

safety. 

Given the importance of improving runway safety, the Committee believes that the FAA’s management of this program reflects poorly on the agency. As it moves forward with the program, 

the Committee expects the FAA be more responsible in developing 

a realistic budget and schedule, more vigilant in containing costs 

throughout the life of the program, and more engaged with airport 

sponsors on agreeing to an equitable share of program costs. 

Approach Lighting System Improvement Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the procurement 

and replacement of Medium Intensity Approach Lighting Systems 

with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights, an increase of $1,000,000 

above the budget request. These lighting systems improve safety by 

helping pilots align their aircraft with the center line of the runway. 

VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range [VOR] With Distance Measuring Equipment [DME].—The Committee is aware of the FAA’s efforts to reduce the number of VORs to a minimum operating network. The Committee directs the FAA to provide the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations a report that provides a 

schedule for the implementation of the network, and a plan for involving stakeholders and aviation users in the implementation. The 

Committee further directs the FAA to submit this plan within 120 

days of enactment of this act. 

FAA Management Training and Conference Center.—The Committee recommends that the FAA continue to pursue new leased 

space for its Management Training and Conference Center. A significant amount of both private and public resources have been 

committed to this procurement process. The Committee recognizes 

that a best value acquisition will result in continuing the preceding 

procurement process as the FAA’s long-term need for such a facility 

remains. The Committee, in understanding both the FAA’s longterm needs and costs of remaining in the current facility, recognizes that it is appropriate to not only continue with the procurement but that doing so is consistent with the recently enacted FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $167,221,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 166,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 160,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Research, Engineering and Development appropriation provides funding for long-term research, engineering, and development 

programs to improve the air traffic control system by increasing its 

safety and capacity, as well as reducing the environmental impacts 

of air traffic, as authorized by the Airport and Airway Improve-
37 

ment Act and the Federal Aviation Act, as amended. The programs 

are designed to meet the expected air traffic demands of the future 

and to promote flight safety through improvements in facilities, 

equipment, techniques, and procedures to ensure that the system 

will safely and efficiently handle future volumes of aircraft traffic. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $160,000,000 for the FAA’s research, engineering, and development activities. The recommended 

level of funding is $6,000,000 less than the budget request and 

$7,221,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The Committee also recommends the rescission of $26,183,000 in unobligated balances from prior year appropriations. 

A table showing the fiscal year 2014 budget estimate and the 

Committee recommendation follows: 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT 

Budget estimate, 

2014 

Committee 

recommendation 

Safety: 

Fire Research and Safety ....................................................................................................... $8,313,000 $7,500,000 

Propulsion and Fuel Safety ..................................................................................................... 1,974,000 1,800,000 

Advanced Structural/Structural Safety ................................................................................... 2,607,000 2,600,000 

Atmospheric Hazards-Aircraft Icing/Digital System Safety .................................................... 7,582,000 7,500,000

Continued Airworthiness ......................................................................................................... 8,167,000 8,000,000 

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research ................................................................ 1,652,000 1,500,000 

Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors ................................................. 5,000,000 5,000,000 

System Safety Management ................................................................................................... 11,583,000 11,000,000 

Air Traffic Control Technical Operations Human Factors ...................................................... 6,000,000 5,000,000

Aeromedical Research ............................................................................................................. 8,672,000 7,000,000 

Weather Program ..................................................................................................................... 15,279,000 13,860,000 

Unmanned Aircraft System ..................................................................................................... 7,500,000 7,500,000 

NextGen Alternative Fuels for General Aviation ..................................................................... 5,571,000 7,100,000 

NextGen Advanced Systems and Software Validation ............................................................ 1,021,000 1,000,000

Economic Competitiveness: 

Joint Program and Development Office .................................................................................. 12,057,000 9,000,000 

NextGen: Wake Turbulence ...................................................................................................... 9,267,000 9,000,000 

NextGen: Air Ground Integration ............................................................................................. 10,329,000 10,000,000 

NextGen: Weather in the Cockpit ............................................................................................ 4,169,000 4,000,000 

Environmental Sustainability: 

Environment and Energy ......................................................................................................... 14,542,000 14,600,000 

NextGen: Environmental Research .......................................................................................... 18,979,000 21,400,000 

Mission Support: 

System Planning and Resource Management ........................................................................ 2,289,000 2,200,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility ........................................................ 3,447,000 3,440,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................... 166,000,000 160,000,000 

Unmanned Aerial Systems.—The Committee is aware of the 

FAA’s progress in establishing an FAA Unmanned Aerial System 

[UAS] Center of Excellence to address a host of research challenges 

associated with integration of UAS systems into the national airspace. The Committee asserts that the formation of a UAS Center 

of Excellence is essential to meet requirements enacted as part of 

the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Committee directs the FAA to complete the establishment of the UAS Center of 

Excellence with funds provided for UAS research. The Committee 

directs that the establishment of a Center of Excellence shall be 

through a separate process than the process it uses to establish 
38 

UAS test sites in accordance with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, although the Committee encourages cooperation 

among the Center of Excellence and the six test sites after establishment. The Committee further directs that the new Center of 

Excellence shall: provide recommendations for a safe, non-exclusionary airspace designation for cooperative manned and unmanned flight operations; conduct research to support UAS interagency requirements to include emergency response, maritime contingencies, and bio-fuel and clean fuel technologies; coordinate such 

research and development activities with the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration and the Department of Defense; provide 

recommendations on aircraft certification to include composites and 

stress modeling, flight standards and air traffic requirements; and 

facilitate UAS technology transfer to other civilian and defense 

agencies, initially focusing on emergency management. The Administrator shall take into consideration geographical and climate diversity, relevant research capability, and participating consortia 

from the public and private sectors, educational institutions, and 

nonprofit organizations. 

UAS Test Sites.—The Committee recognizes the FAA’s progress 

in designating UAS test ranges in accordance with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Committee directs the FAA 

to ensure the selection of test sites incorporates location criteria 

outlined in that law. The Committee notes the importance of each 

of the selection requirements, which involve consideration of geographic and climatic diversity, the location of ground infrastructure 

and research needs; and consultation with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Defense. 

Alternative Fuels Center of Excellence.—The Committee recommendation includes $14,600,000 for Environment and Energy, 

and another $21,400,000 for NextGen Environmental Research Aircraft Technologies Fuels and Metrics, for a total funding level of 

$36,000,000 for activities related to environmental sustainability. 

This funding level is $2,479,000 above the budget request. Consistent with the budget request, the total Committee recommendation for environmental sustainability activities includes not less 

than $5,000,000 to establish a new, separate Center of Excellence 

for alternative jet fuel research in civil aircraft, as authorized by 

section 911 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The 

Committee is aware that the FAA has closed a solicitation to establish the new Center of Excellence and directs it to act expeditiously 

to designate a Center of Excellence for alternative jet fuel research. 

In accordance with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, the 

Committee notes that the primary purpose of the Center of Excellence will be the development and analysis of alternative jet fuels. 

As envisioned by FAA’s solicitation, the new Center of Excellence 

will also identify solutions for existing and anticipated problems 

facing aviation in terms of environment and energy by conducting 

testing, modeling, and analysis related to aviation impacts. 

The Committee encourages the FAA to select an educational and 

research institution that can lead this effort in collaboration with 

substantial private sector support and in partnership with other 

educational and research institutions. The Center should have 

strong capacity in both alternative fuels research and development, 
39 

and in environmental impacts modeling and analysis. As specified 

in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, the Center should leverage facilities and experience across the alternative fuel supply 

chain, including research, feedstock development and production, 

small-scale development, testing, and technology evaluation related 

to the creation, processing, production, and transportation of alternative fuels. In consideration of the purpose of section 911 of the 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act, the Committee continues to 

encourage the FAA to establish a Center of Excellence that will 

build on the body of work performed by a consortium examining 

the development of alternative aviation fuels. 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2013 enacted 2014 estimate 

Resources from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund: 

Limitation on obligations 1 ............................................. $3,343,000,000 2,900,000,000 3,350,000,000 

Liquidation of contract authorization ............................. 3,435,000,000 3,200,000,000 3,200,000,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. Obligation limitations (and the related contract author- ity) and liquidating authority for grants-in-aid to airports are not subject to the sequester. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Funding for grants-in-aid to airports pays for capital improvements at the Nation’s airports, including those investments that 

emphasize capacity development, safety improvements, and security needs. Other priority areas for funding under this program include improvements to runway safety areas that do not conform to 

FAA standards, investments that are designed to reduce runway 

incursions, and aircraft noise compatibility planning and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of $3,350,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year 2014. 

The recommended limitation on obligations is $6,700,000 more 

than the enacted level for fiscal year 2013, and $450,000,000 more 

than the budget estimate. Under the administration’s request, 

large commercial airports no longer receive formula grants from 

the program, but they would be allowed to raise their passenger facility charges to finance capital improvements. The Committee 

notes that an increase to passenger facility charges was considered 

as part of the debate over the bill to reauthorize the FAA. That increase, however, was not included in the final legislation. The Committee therefore recommends a funding level that would fund capital improvements at all airports that support our Nation’s air 

transportation system. 

In addition, the Committee recommends a liquidating cash ap- propriation of $3,200,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports. The recommended level is equal to the budget estimate and $235,000,000 

less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. This appropriation is 
40 

sufficient to cover the liquidation of all obligations incurred pursuant to the limitation on obligations set forward in the bill. 

Protecting AIP Funding for Airport Infrastructure Development.— 

In fiscal year 2013, as part of the Reducing Flight Delays Act, Congress provided the one-time transfer of up to $253,000,000 in carryover balances from grants-in-aid to airports to the FAA’s Operations account. Congress authorized this transfer in order to prevent the reduction of agency operations and staffing necessary for 

the FAA to live within its limited resources following the sequester 

of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee views this use of limited airport resources in fiscal year 2013 as a one-time occurrence aimed at averting serious 

national impacts. The Committee does not anticipate further diversion of AIP funds to FAA operations or any other activity beyond 

those specified in this legislation. The use of AIP funds for purposes other than airport infrastructure development could have a 

serious impact on the ability of the Nation’s airports to meet current and future FAA standards; replace or rehabilitate critical airport facilities; increase airfield capacity; enhance competition 

among airlines; modify, replace, or construct facilities to accommodate additional passengers and aircraft; or meet other important 

safety, security, and environmental requirements. The Committee 

also believes that any future legislation to address the impact of sequestration cuts to the FAA’s budget should be part of a larger 

package that replaces sequestration with a more responsible approach to deficit reduction. 

Airport Privatization.—Congress created the Airport Privatization Pilot Program in 1996 to attract private companies to lease or 

buy public airports. The Committee is aware there are some public 

airports interested in being sold or leased through the pilot program. The Department of Transportation has the discretionary authority to waive existing Federal funding repayment requirements. 

The Committee expects the Department to use its discretionary authority to waive repayment of past Federal funds at privatized airports judiciously. In addition, the Committee directs the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to evaluate the benefits, costs, 

and trade-offs of airport public-private partnerships; how public officials have identified and acted to protect the public interest in 

these arrangements; and the Federal role in such public-private 

partnerships and potential changes in this role. The Committee 

further directs GAO to issue a report on its findings not later than 

1 year following enactment. 

Administrative Expenses.—The Committee recommends 

$106,600,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding level 

is equal to the budget request, and $5,802,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2013 enacted level. 

Airport Cooperative Research.—The Committee recommends 

$15,000,000 for the airport cooperative research program. This 

funding level is equal to the budget estimate and $30,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

Airport Technology.—The Committee recommends $29,500,000 

for airport technology research. This funding level is equal to the 

budget request, and $309,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 level. 
41 

Small Community Air Service Development Program 

[SCASDP].—The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Small 

Community Air Service Development Program. This funding level 

is $12,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The administration requested no funds for this program for fiscal year 2014. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Section 110 limits the number of technical staff years at the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to no more than 

600 in fiscal year 2014. 

Section 111 prohibits funds in this act from being used to adopt 

guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide the 

FAA ‘‘without cost’’ buildings, maintenance, or space for FAA services. The prohibition does not apply to negotiations between the 

FAA and airport sponsors concerning ‘‘below market’’ rates for such 

services or to grant assurances that require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the FAA for air traffic control facilities. 

Section 112 permits the Administrator to reimburse FAA appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) as 

fees are collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 45303. 

Section 113 allows funds received to reimburse the FAA for providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities to be 

credited to the Operations account. 

Section 114 prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium pay 

except in those cases where the individual actually worked on a 

Sunday. 

Section 115 prohibits the FAA from using funds provided in the 

bill to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates through a Government-issued credit card. 

Section 116 allows all airports experiencing the required level of 

boardings through charter and scheduled air service to be eligible 

for funds under 49 U.S.C. 47114(c). 

Section 117 requires approval from the Assistant Secretary for 

Administration of the Department of Transportation for retention 

bonuses for any FAA employee. 

Section 118 limits to 20 percent the cost-share required under 

the contract tower cost-share program. 

Section 119 requires that, upon request by a private owner or operator of an aircraft, the Secretary block the display of that owner 

or operator’s aircraft registration number in the Aircraft Situational Display to Industry program. 

Section 119A prohibits funds in this act for salaries and expenses 

of more than eight political and Presidential appointees in the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Section 119B requires the FAA to conduct public outreach and 

provide justification to the Committee before increasing fees under 

section 44721 of title 49, United States Code. 

Section 119C prohibits funds from being used to change weight 

restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro Airport in New 

Jersey. 

Section 119D requires the FAA to take certain measures to address helicopter noise in Los Angeles County. 
42 

Section 119E prohibits the FAA from issuing regulations on the 

integration of unmanned aerial systems until the Secretary submits a report on the privacy implications of such systems. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA] is, in partnership with State and local governments, to 

foster the development of a safe, efficient, and effective highway 

and intermodal system nationwide including access to and within 

national forests, national parks, Indian lands, and other public 

lands. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of 

$41,495,000,000 would be provided for the activities of the Federal 

Highway Administration in fiscal year 2014. The recommendation 

is $500,000,000 more than the budget request. The total program 

level under the Committee recommendations is $885,000,000 less 

than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level; however, the total for fiscal 

year 2013 also included $2,022,000,000 in emergency spending that 

would not be repeated for fiscal year 2014 under the Committee 

recommendation. Excluding emergency relief, the funding reflected 

in the bill is $1,136,398,000 above last year’s level. The following 

table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations: 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2013 enacted 2014 estimate 

Federal-aid highway program obligation limitation 1 ............. $39,619,602,000 $40,256,000,000 $40,256,000,000 

Bridges in critical corridors ..................................................... .............................. .............................. 500,000,000 

Contract authority exempt from the obligation limitation 1 ... 739,000,000 739,000,000 739,000,000 

Emergency relief (emergency spending) 1 ............................... 2,022,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Total ............................................................................ 42,380,602,000 40,995,000,000 41,495,000,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. Obligation limitations for the Federal-aid highway pro- gram (and the related contract authority) are not subject to the sequester, but contract authority that is exempt from the obligation limitation 

is subject to the sequester. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation, 2013 1 .................................................................................. $416,126,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 429,855,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 429,855,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. Obligation 

limitations for the Federal-aid highway program is not subject to the sequester. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

offices. 
43 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$429,855,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. This limitation is equal to the budget request and $13,729,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

In addition, $3,248,000 in contract authority above this limitation is made available for the administrative expenses of the Appalachian Regional Commission in accordance with section 104 of 

title 23, United States Code. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2013 1 .................................................................................. $39,619,602,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 40,256,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,256,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. Obligation 

limitations for the Federal-aid highway program are not subject to the sequester. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal-aid highway program provides financial support to 

States and localities for development, construction, and repair of 

highways and bridges through grants. The program is financed 

from the Highway Trust Fund and most of the funds are distributed through apportionments and allocations to States. Title 23 of 

the United States Code and other supporting legislation provide 

authority for the various activities of the FHWA. Funding is provided by contract authority, with program levels established by annual limitations on obligations set in appropriations acts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2014 Federal-aid 

highways obligations to $40,256,000,000, which is equal to the 

budget request and $636,398,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 

enacted level for the Federal-aid highway program. This funding 

level is consistent with the most recent authorization law, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act [MAP–21]. 

In addition, the bill includes a provision that allows the FHWA 

to collect and spend fees in order to pay for the services of expert 

firms in the field of municipal and project finance to assist the 

agency in the provision of TIFIA credit instruments. 

MAP–21 Implementation.—The Committee is aware of the many 

programmatic, regulatory, and reporting requirements and deadlines established in MAP–21. Though MAP–21 is a 2-year authorization bill, many of its policies and provisions are expected to take 

several years beyond fiscal year 2014 to be completed and implemented. As FHWA works to implement MAP–21, it needs to provide regular updates to Congress on whether it faces any challenges in meeting its statutory deadlines. Therefore, the Committee 

directs FHWA to provide to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations not later than 180 days after enactment of this act, 

and biennially thereafter, a report that lists all deadlines, require-
44 

ments, and mandates in MAP–21, the current status of each activity, and an explanation of any delays. 

The Committee has fully funded the administration’s request for 

administrative resources to ensure that the agency is able to implement MAP–21, and directs FHWA to provide an explanation in its 

fiscal year 2015 budget justifications of how the agency is making 

any changes to the composition of its workforce as a result of 

MAP–21. 

Justification Reports.—FHWA issued its most recent guidance on 

interstate access points in 2009. The guidance requires that, before 

approving a new access point to the interstate system, FHWA must 

determine, among other things, that the need being addressed by 

the new access point would not be satisfied by existing interchanges and that the new access point would not have a significant 

adverse impact on safety. The guidance also specifically recognizes 

the critical role that surface transportation plays in shaping the 

economic health of regions and States. In recognition of that policy, 

the Committee notes that, so long as proposed new interchanges 

meet requirements in FHWA guidance, the agency’s current guidance provides room for FHWA to approve access points designed to 

encourage economic growth. 

Section 1505 of MAP–21 amended section 111 of title 23 to allow 

the Secretary to permit a State department of transportation to approve justification reports for a project that would add a point of 

access to, or exit from, the interstate system. The Committee notes 

that FHWA has not yet provided any new guidance on how the 

agency will implement section 1505. The Committee encourages 

FHWA to issue such guidance immediately, building upon existing 

policy on interstate access points. 

Alternative Fuels Infrastructure.—Recent years have seen meaningful growth in the alternative fuel vehicle sector. By helping to 

decrease fuel consumption, this sector plays an important role in 

our Nation’s energy security. As automobile manufacturers design 

new vehicles to meet stronger fuel economy standards in coming 

years, alternative fuel vehicles are expected to comprise a larger 

share of the vehicle fleet in the United States. At this time, efforts 

to encourage the deployment of refueling and recharging infrastructure to support alternative fuel vehicles have relied primarily on 

State and Federal incentives, grants and matching programs. As 

the industry looks to the future, however, the development of new, 

innovative funding mechanisms will be important to continued 

market growth. 

The Committee recognizes FHWA’s ongoing efforts to evaluate 

the prospects for deployment of electric vehicles and to analyze the 

potential impact of this deployment on its mission, including the financial implications for available highway revenues. The Committee directs FHWA to provide the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations, not later than 1 year after enactment of this 

Act, a report on options for financing alternative fueling stations, 

including public-access electric vehicle charging stations. The Committee expects the report to address a variety of financing mechanisms, including, but not limited to, Federal grants and credit assistance, public-private partnerships and membership-based cooperatives. The Committee further directs that, in developing its 
45 

report, FHWA consult with interested stakeholders, including the 

Department of Energy, relevant industry members, and State departments of transportation actively participating in alternative 

and electric vehicle infrastructure deployment. 

Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities.—An 

important principle of our Federal transportation programs has 

long been that taxpayer dollars support projects for the public benefit. For this reason, the Federal-aid Highway program provides 

grants to public entities such as State and local governments. The 

ferry program follows this same principle, allowing Federal grants 

to support only ferry systems that are operated by a public entity 

or by a private firm operating the system on behalf of a public entity. 

The enactment of MAP–21 changed the ferry program from a discretionary program that distributed funds through a competitive 

process to a formula program that distributes funds based on the 

number of passengers, vehicles and route miles in each ferry system. The Committee notes, however, that MAP–21 does not change 

the eligibility requirements of the program. In its published materials on the ferry program, FHWA explains that ‘‘[ferry boat program] eligibilities continue unchanged’’ and that eligible ferry systems must operate on a route that has been classified as a public 

road; it must be either publicly owned or operated, or majority publicly owned; and the operating authority and the amount of fares 

charged for passage on the ferry shall be under the control of the 

State or other public entity. 

In order to distribute ferry grants provided by the short-term 

continuing resolution, FHWA used data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistic’s 2010 Census of Ferry Boat Operators, which is 

the best available data. FHWA understood, however, that this data 

was not sufficient to make final eligibility decisions because it took 

into account all ferry operators in the United States, including 

some that might be considered private operators. The agency required its division offices to confirm the eligibility of each operator 

before making funds available for obligation. Since FHWA’s initial 

distribution of funds, division offices have worked closely with 

State and local agencies, identifying a number of operators that are 

not eligible for the program. FHWA is currently preparing to distribute ferry grants with the full-year of funding, and this notice 

will incorporate the corrections found by the division offices. 

The Committee recognizes that FHWA worked hard to distribute 

the funding in a timely manner, but notes that the process has 

been confusing for ferry operators and the public, leading to uncertainty regarding the amount of funding available to eligible entities. Going forward, the Committee urges FHWA to proactively determine the eligibility of ferry operators to provide certainty regarding available funds for those entities that are eligible recipients. 

Safe Routes to Schools.—The Safe Routes to Schools program was 

created in 2005 to help children walk or bicycle to school by making their routes safer and more appealing. The program supported 

changes to the local transportation system that improve safety and 

that reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the 

school’s surrounding area. 
46 

The Safe Routes to Schools program originally provided 100 percent of a project’s costs. MAP–21, however, combined the Safe 

Routes to Schools program with other Federal-aid Highway programs. As a result, projects that had been eligible for the program 

now require a local match of funds. This match requirement poses 

a significant challenge for low-income areas that want to create a 

safe environment around their schools. 

The Committee believes that the underlying authorization law 

needs to strike the correct balance between recognizing the needs 

of low-income neighborhoods with requiring local stakeholders to 

contribute to their transportation improvements. The Committee 

also recognizes that significant unobligated balances remain from 

the funding originally dedicated to the Safe Routes to Schools program. Those balances retain the 100 percent Federal share. The 

Committee directs FHWA to work with States on a way to target 

those funds to projects that benefit low-income neighborhoods. 

Technology Transfer of Paving Materials.—The Committee encourages the Department to use discretionary funds authorized 

under subsection 503(b)(3)(C)(xix) of title 23, United States Code, 

for technology transfer and adoption of permeable, pervious, or porous paving materials, practices, and systems that are designed to 

minimize environmental impacts, stormwater runoff, and flooding, 

and to treat or remove pollutants by allowing stormwater to infiltrate through the pavement in a manner similar to predevelopment 

hydrologic conditions. Such activities may include testing of hightraffic permeable pavements using infiltration concrete or asphalt 

bases; validation of hydrologic/hydraulic/pollutant removal performance data and modeling; data collection and reporting on permeable pavements, installation, maintenance and life cycle costs. If 

the Department uses its discretionary funds in this manner, then 

the Committee directs the Department to issue reports on its findings to State and municipal transportation agencies to overcome 

technical barriers to adoption of permeable infiltration pavements 

in the transportation infrastructure. 

Private Activity Bonds.—Section 1143 of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

authorized private activity bonds for qualified highway and surface 

freight transfer facility projects. These bonds play a large role in 

incentivizing private investment in public projects. While the 

$15,000,000,000 statutory cap has not yet been reached, the Committee directs the Secretary to analyze the existing program and 

report back to the House and Senate Committees within 120 days 

of enactment regarding projected future utilization and the current 

project pipeline, as well as any recommendations to increase or 

eliminate the authorization cap. 

Buy America.—The Committee is aware of concerns being raised 

by local transportation districts regarding changes made in MAP– 

21 to the applicability of the Buy America law to federally funded 

highway projects and the effect of those changes on utility relocation projects. Specifically, utilities have stated that while they intend to be Buy America compliant in the future, they are currently 

unable to comply due to existing stockpiles of utility-specific materials and the long lead time required to replace them. These issues 

could result in delays to hundreds of projects and cost thousands 
47 

of jobs. The Committee urges the Department to work with local 

stakeholders to find a solution that implements the intent of the 

Buy America provisions but allows critical projects to move forward. 

State Apportionments.—The following table shows the expected 

obligation limitation provided to each State under the Committee’s 

recommended funding level: 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2013 enacted 2014 estimate 

Formula Programs 

ALABAMA .............................................................................................. $688,831,859 $696,248,501 $696,248,501 

ALASKA ................................................................................................. 435,370,860 440,059,377 440,059,377 

ARIZONA ............................................................................................... 650,616,469 657,617,792 657,617,792 

ARKANSAS ............................................................................................ 459,330,022 464,277,115 464,277,115 

CALIFORNIA .......................................................................................... 3,272,641,156 3,307,822,975 3,307,822,975 

COLORADO ............................................................................................ 486,155,977 491,384,692 491,384,692 

CONNECTICUT ....................................................................................... 446,993,251 451,801,921 451,801,921 

DELAWARE ............................................................................................ 150,424,643 152,043,358 152,043,358 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ....................................................................... 141,856,122 143,382,759 143,382,759 

FLORIDA ................................................................................................ 1,720,188,250 1,738,709,837 1,738,709,837 

GEORGIA ............................................................................................... 1,173,217,863 1,185,842,059 1,185,842,059 

HAWAII .................................................................................................. 146,982,130 148,564,656 148,564,656 

IDAHO ................................................................................................... 254,016,617 256,751,384 256,751,384 

ILLINOIS ................................................................................................ 1,292,591,900 1,306,493,924 1,306,493,924 

INDIANA ................................................................................................ 827,077,797 835,985,313 835,985,313 

IOWA ..................................................................................................... 426,894,869 431,492,636 431,492,636 

KANSAS ................................................................................................. 343,178,928 346,873,280 346,873,280 

KENTUCKY ............................................................................................ 603,319,173 609,814,555 609,814,555 

LOUISIANA ............................................................................................ 607,795,550 614,345,130 614,345,130 

MAINE ................................................................................................... 164,049,729 165,815,463 165,815,463 

MARYLAND ............................................................................................ 521,862,034 527,477,962 527,477,962 

MASSACHUSETTS .................................................................................. 552,487,736 558,427,064 558,427,064 

MICHIGAN ............................................................................................. 957,059,672 967,354,488 967,354,488 

MINNESOTA ........................................................................................... 579,268,659 585,504,512 585,504,512 

MISSISSIPPI .......................................................................................... 429,071,692 433,692,924 433,692,924 

MISSOURI ............................................................................................. 839,999,333 849,045,845 849,045,845 

MONTANA .............................................................................................. 364,225,269 368,147,186 368,147,186 

NEBRASKA ............................................................................................ 256,594,101 259,357,034 259,357,034 

NEVADA ................................................................................................ 323,181,926 326,658,572 326,658,572 

NEW HAMPSHIRE .................................................................................. 150,165,032 151,780,515 151,780,515 

NEW JERSEY ......................................................................................... 908,231,611 917,995,611 917,995,611 

NEW MEXICO ........................................................................................ 318,311,999 321,741,336 321,741,336 

NEW YORK ............................................................................................ 1,527,079,966 1,543,495,078 1,543,495,078 

NORTH CAROLINA ................................................................................. 903,591,363 913,322,956 913,322,956 

NORTH DAKOTA .................................................................................... 225,540,143 227,967,389 227,967,389 

OHIO ..................................................................................................... 1,192,003,625 1,204,830,604 1,204,830,604 

OKLAHOMA ............................................................................................ 562,545,112 568,604,309 568,604,309 

OREGON ................................................................................................ 443,811,370 448,589,838 448,589,838 

PENNSYLVANIA ..................................................................................... 1,491,186,466 1,507,228,860 1,507,228,860 

RHODE ISLAND ..................................................................................... 194,275,207 196,366,599 196,366,599 

SOUTH CAROLINA ................................................................................. 570,076,439 576,213,948 576,213,948 

SOUTH DAKOTA ..................................................................................... 244,696,001 247,331,581 247,331,581 

TENNESSEE ........................................................................................... 750,444,186 758,523,665 758,523,665 

TEXAS ................................................................................................... 2,867,152,600 2,898,005,952 2,898,005,952 

UTAH ..................................................................................................... 286,071,694 289,151,776 289,151,776 

VERMONT .............................................................................................. 180,390,588 182,332,111 182,332,111 

VIRGINIA ............................................................................................... 904,189,531 913,922,375 913,922,375 

WASHINGTON ........................................................................................ 602,452,369 608,936,859 608,936,859 

WEST VIRGINIA ..................................................................................... 387,876,267 392,053,125 392,053,125 

WISCONSIN ........................................................................................... 683,461,819 690,817,948 690,817,948 

WYOMING .............................................................................................. 222,239,560 224,633,385 224,633,385 
48 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2013 enacted 2014 estimate 

SUBTOTAL ............................................................................... 34,731,076,535 35,104,838,134 35,104,838,134 

Allocated programs .............................................................................. 4,367,010,516 4,624,181,656 4,624,181,656 

Sections 154 and 164 penalties ......................................................... 521,514,949 526,980,210 526,980,210 

Total ........................................................................................ 39,619,602,000 40,256,000,000 40,256,000,000 

Program Descriptions.—The roads and bridges that make up our 

Nation’s highway infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States have much flexibility to use Federal-aid highway 

funds to best meet their individual needs and priorities, with 

FHWA’s assistance and oversight. 

MAP–21, the highway, highway safety, and transit authorization 

through fiscal year 2014, made Federal-aid highways funds available in the following categories of spending: —National Highway Performance Program [NHPP].—This program provides support for the condition and performance of the 

national highway system [NHS], and for the construction of 

new facilities on the NHS. Projects funded through the NHPP 

must support progress toward the achievement of national performance goals for improving infrastructure condition, safety, 

mobility, or freight movement on the national highway system. 

Such projects must also support progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a State’s asset 

management plan, and must be consistent with requirements 

for metropolitan and statewide planning. Funding for this program also supports the Transportation Alternatives program, 

and State planning and research. —Surface Transportation Program.—The Surface Transportation 

Program provides flexible funding that may be used by States 

and localities for projects that preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway; bridge and 

tunnel projects on any public road; pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and transit capital projects, including intercity 

bus terminals. Funding for this program also supports the 

Transportation Alternatives program, and State planning and 

research. A portion of the program’s funding is set aside for 

improvements to off-system bridges. 

—Highway Safety Improvement Program.—This program is designed to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and 

serious injuries on all public roads, including roads on tribal 

lands and other public roads that are not owned by a State 

government. An eligible highway safety improvement project is 

any strategy, activity or project on a public road that corrects 

or improves a hazardous road location or feature, or addresses 

a highway safety problem. Such projects must be consistent 

with the State’s strategic highway safety plan, which must be 

based on analysis of crash data. Funding for this program also 

supports the Transportation Alternatives program, and State 

planning and research. In addition, a set-aside from the STP 
49 

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. 
50 

—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 interisland connectors. —Emergency Relief.—The Emergency Relief program provides 

funds for emergency repairs and permanent repairs on Federal-aid highways and roads on Federal lands that the Secretary finds have suffered serious damage as a result of natural disasters or catastrophic failure from an external cause. 

This program receives an appropriation of $100,000,000 in contract authority each year from the Highway Trust Fund, and 

this funding is exempt from the obligation limitation imposed 

on the Federal-aid Highway Program. In addition to this contract authority, the program receives such sums as may be necessary from the general fund of the Treasury to meet emergency needs. 

—Research, Technology and Education.—The Federal Highway 

Administration manages the following programs that support 

research, technology development, and education activities: 

—The Highway Research and Development Program funds 

strategic investments in research activities that address current and emerging highway transportation needs. 

—The Technology and Innovation Deployment Program funds 

efforts to accelerate the implementation and delivery of new 

innovations and technologies that result from highway research and development to benefit all aspects of highway 

transportation. 

—The Training and Education Program supports FHWA’s efforts to train the current and future transportation workforce, share knowledge with transportation professionals, 

and provide training that addresses the full lifecycle of the 

highway transportation system. 

In addition to these programs, funding provided under the Federal-aid Highways Program supports the Intelligent Transportation 

Systems Program, University Transportation Centers and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. These programs have been administered by the Research and Innovative Technology Administra-
51 

tion. The Committee recommendation would elevate RITA’s responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary, as requested by the Administration. 

BRIDGES IN CRITICAL CORRIDORS

Appropriations, 2013 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $500,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation will support additional investments under the 

Surface Transportation Program, which is one of the core formula 

grant programs that represent the majority of funding under the 

Federal-aid Highways Program. The funding is targeted to bridge 

projects that are located on the national highway system, or that 

are expected to provide significant safety or economic benefits. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $500,000,000 for the 

repair, replacement, and construction of bridges that are located in 

critical corridors on our Nation’s highway system. This funding will 

support bridge projects across the country that are designed to protect the safety and reliability of our transportation network, or 

which would result in significant economic benefits. 

The collapse of the I–5 bridge over the Skagit River in May 

caused immeasurable disruption to the region and its economy, and 

the incident serves as a reminder of what happens to our communities when they lose an essential part of their transportation infrastructure. Without the use of the Skagit River bridge, commuters have been trapped in their cars for an additional hour 

every day. Local shops have experienced a dramatic loss of business. Larger companies that move goods throughout the region 

have been forced to divert shipments, draining their productivity. 

On June 13, the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development, and Related Agencies held a hearing to examine the need to invest in our Nation’s roads and bridges. Witnesses 

from the Administration and the Government Accountability Office 

[GAO] testified to the importance of investments in our transportation infrastructure. Mr. Phillip Herr, Managing Director of Physical Infrastructure at GAO, attested to the fact that bridge conditions have improved slightly in the past decade, but a substantial 

number of bridges remain in poor condition. His data show that of 

the more than 600,000 bridges in the United States, 25 percent are 

classified as deficient. The testimony of Under Secretary Polly 

Trottenberg made the case that current programs cannot meet the 

demand for bridge projects across the country. The Department has 

received hundreds of applications to support bridge projects 

through funding provided as National Infrastructure Investments, 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘TIGER’’ program. Additionally, several sponsors of nationally significant bridge projects expressed interest in receiving credit assistance from the Department. However, according to the Under Secretary, ‘‘there is far more demand 

for investments than we have funds available.’’ 
52 

Funding Distribution.—The bill language requires the Secretary 

to distribute these funds through a competitive process. The Committee instructs the Secretary to take such measures so as to ensure an equitable geographic distribution of funds, and an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and rural areas. 

The Committee recognizes the need for these bridge repairs far exceeds available funding; therefore, the Committee encourages the 

Secretary to consider projects which leverage nongovernmental 

support in addition to other criteria. 

GAO Survey on Oversize Load Permitting.—The National Transportation Safety Board continues to investigate the root cause of 

the Skagit River bridge collapse, but it has been clear that a critical part of this incident is the fact that the bridge was struck by 

a truck carrying an oversized load. Each State administers its own 

system for issuing permits to carry such loads, but an incident like 

the collapse of the Skagit River bridge raises important questions 

about how the Federal and State governments can better protect 

our infrastructure. The Committee directs GAO to conduct a survey 

of the State departments of transportation on their treatment of 

oversize loads, including their permitting process and oversight regime. The Committee further directs GAO to issue a report on its 

findings to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

not later than 18 months after enactment of this act. The Committee expects this report to detail the GAO’s survey findings, offer 

recommendations and best practices, and address the appropriate 

role of the Federal and State governments. 

Bridge Height Signs.—The collapse of the Skagit River bridge 

raised questions about the height of the truck that struck the 

bridge, and what the truck driver knew about the height of the 

bridge. These questions underscore the importance of clear and appropriate signage on our public roads. The Committee directs the 

Federal Highway Administration to reevaluate Federal and State 

requirements for marking bridge height, including standards related to the position and design of such signs and the enforcement 

of such standards. The Committee further directs FHWA to report 

its findings and recommendations to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than 1 year following enactment. In conducting its evaluation, the Committee expects FHWA 

to consult with the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, the American Society of Civil Engineers, 

and other relevant organizations. 

LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $39,882,583,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 40,995,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,995,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. Liquidating 

authority is not subject to sequester. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal-aid Highway program is funded through contract 

authority paid out of the Highway Trust Fund. Most forms of budget authority provide the authority to enter into obligations and 
53 

then to liquidate those obligations. Put another way, it allows a 

Federal agency to commit to spending money on specified activities 

and then to actually spend that money. In contrast, contract authority provides only the authority to enter into obligations, but not 

the authority to liquidate those obligations. The authority to liquidate obligations—to actually spend the money committed with 

the contract authority—must be provided separately. The authority 

to liquidate obligations under the Federal-aid highways program is 

provided under this heading. This liquidating authority allows 

FHWA to follow through on commitments already allowed under 

current law; it does not provide the authority to enter into new 

commitments for Federal spending. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of 

$40,995,000,000. The recommended level is equal to the budget request and $1,112,417,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted 

level. This level of liquidating authority is necessary to pay outstanding obligations from various highway accounts pursuant to 

this and prior appropriations acts. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Section 120 distributes obligation authority among Federal-aid 

Highway programs. 

Section 121 continues a provision that credits funds received by 

the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the Federal-aid highways account. 

Section 122 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy American requirements. 

Section 123 continues a provision prohibiting tolling in Texas, 

with exceptions. 

Section 124 makes contract authority available for FHWA’s administrative expenses. 

Section 125 requires congressional notification before the Department provides credit assistance under the TIFIA program. 

Section 126 clarifies language in MAP–21 that allows States to 

use CMAQ on transit or rail operating assstance with no time limitation. 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] was 

established within the Department of Transportation by the Motor 

Carrier Safety Improvement Act [MCSIA] (Public Law 106–159) in 

December 1999. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier safety responsibilities were under the jurisdiction of the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

MCSIA, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU], and the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act [MAP–21] provide 

funding authorization for FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs and Motor Carrier Safety Grants. 
54 

FMCSA’s mission is to promote safe commercial motor vehicle 

and motor coach operations, as well as reduce the number and severity of accidents. Agency resources and activities prevent and 

mitigate commercial motor vehicle and motor coach accidents 

through education, regulation, enforcement, stakeholder training, 

technological innovation, and improved information systems. 

FMCSA is also responsible for ensuring that all commercial vehicles entering the United States along its southern and northern 

borders comply with all Federal motor carrier safety and hazardous 

materials regulations. To accomplish these activities, FMCSA 

works with Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies, the 

motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and the public. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total level of $595,000,000 for obligations and liquidations from the Highway Trust Fund. This level 

is $23,000,000 more than the request and $35,122,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2013 1 .................................................................................. $250,498,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 (limitation) ....................................................... 259,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 259,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds. Obligation limitations for Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs (and the related contract authority) are not subject to the 

sequester. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources to support motor 

carrier safety program activities and maintain the agency’s administrative infrastructure. Funding supports nationwide motor carrier 

safety and consumer enforcement efforts, including Federal safety 

enforcement activities at the United States/Mexico border to ensure 

that Mexican carriers entering the United States are in compliance 

with FMCSA regulations. Resources are also provided to fund 

motor carrier regulatory development and implementation, information management, research and technology, safety education 

and outreach, and the 24-hour safety and consumer telephone hotline. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization of 

$259,000,000 for FMCSA’s Operations and Programs. The recommendation is $8,502,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted 

level and equal to the budget request. Of the total limitation on obligations, $9,000,000 is for research and technology, $1,000,000 is 

for commercial motor vehicle operator grants, and $34,545,000 is 
55 

for information management. The request for $5,000,000 to develop 

an Integrated Highway Safety Program Office is denied. 

Over the last 3 years, FMCSA has improved its responsiveness 

to recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board 

[NTSB], the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector 

General, and the Government Accountability Office [GAO]. However, many serious safety issues remain unresolved, such as: preventing operators from providing services if they have serious safety violations for either mechanical failures or unqualified drivers; 

the collection and maintenance of data on hours of service; the 

mandatory use of electronic logging devices; and the identification 

of chameleon carriers. The Committee believes that FMCSA could 

further reduce large truck and bus fatalities and injuries this year 

by addressing these outstanding recommendations, and encourages 

the agency to seize this opportunity. 

Compliance, Safety and Accountability Program [CSA].—In 1999, 

NTSB concluded that FMCSA’s oversight of motor carrier operators 

was ineffective because its safety fitness rating methodology was 

insufficient. Furthermore, the agency relied on a labor-intensive, 

comprehensive audit process that was only capable of reaching 3 

percent of the industry annually. The NTSB recommended that 

FMCSA develop a more efficient method of evaluating operator and 

driver performance into its oversight and enforcement regime. 

In response, FMCSA began to implement its Compliance, Safety 

and Accountability Program [CSA] in 2004. The CSA program represents a complete overhaul of FMCSA’s systems and investigation 

practices, and is designed to better target the agency’s resources at 

the riskiest carriers. The goal of CSA is to use performance data 

to target interventions and help carriers to come into compliance. 

The CSA program uses the new Safety Measurement System 

[SMS] to identify motor carriers that are at risk of causing a crash 

or pose a significant safety hazard. 

According to a Committee-directed February 2011 GAO audit of 

the program, after 8 years and $36,000,000 in Federal investment, 

key components of the CSA program are significantly delayed. 

These delays limit the agency’s ability to implement NTSB’s recommendations to expand oversight of motor carrier operators and 

drivers. The Safety Fitness Determination [SFD] rulemaking, 

which is the cornerstone of CSA, was initially proposed to be completed in 2009, but the notice of proposed rulemaking is now targeted for publication in January, 2014. This rulemaking will be 

subject to great scrutiny, which is likely to require a significant 

amount of time. Until the SFD rulemaking is complete, FMCSA 

continues to rely on a rating and enforcement system that fails to 

place sufficient emphasis on both driver and vehicle qualifications, 

thereby compromising safety on our Nation’s highways. The Committee expects FMCSA to meet its new SFD rule target date of 

January, 2014. 

Last year, the Committee raised concerns with FMCSA’s failure 

to develop a method for determining crash accountability. The 

Committee believes this is an important factor when evaluating a 

carrier’s crash rate for the SMS. The Committee directed FMCSA 

to work with the Department of Transportation’s Volpe Center to 

develop a tool to fairly establish crash accountability and how it 
56 

should affect a carrier’s SMS score. This partnership is part of 

FMCSA’s Crash Weighting Research Plan, which should be completed by the end of fiscal year 2013. The Committee directs 

FMCSA to report on the results of the research plan within 60 days 

of the date of enactment of this act and to seek public input on the 

new crash weighting methodology. 

Pursuant to the Committee’s direction, GAO is currently evaluating: the effectiveness of the CSA program in identifying carriers 

that pose the highest safety risk; how interventions used under 

CSA improve motor carrier safety; and FMCSA’s progress and challenges in managing the CSA program. The Committee requires 

that GAO complete this audit no later than December 1, 2014. 

The Committee strongly supports the agency’s efforts to improve 

its programs and remains focused on ensuring CSA delivers the 

promised results. The Committee is troubled by FMCSA’s failure to 

meet critical milestones for implementing this new system. Therefore, the Committee requests that GAO continue to monitor the implementation of CSA and evaluate FMCSA’s ability to meet its designated milestones. 

Electronic Logging Devices.—In 1977, NTSB issued its first recommendation on the use of on-board data recording devices, or 

electronic logging devices [ELDs], to provide an efficient and reliable means of tracking the number of hours a commercial motor 

vehicle operator drives. In 2008, this recommendation was added to 

NTSB’s Most Wanted List. This recommendation remains ‘‘open 

unacceptable’’. MAP–21 mandates that FMCSA issue a rule by October 2013 requiring all interstate motor carriers to be equipped 

with ELDs to improve compliance and enforcement with existing 

hours of service regulations. The agency is unlikely to meet this 

deadline due to complications with legal challenges to a prior regulatory activity on the limited use of ELDs for operators with persistent hours of service violations. The Committee supports the expanded usage of ELDs and encourages FMCSA to work aggressively to implement the ELD mandate. 

Chameleon Carriers.—The Committee continues to have concerns 

with FMCSA’s ability to detect and prevent unscrupulous motor 

carrier and motor coach operators from evading enforcement or outof-service orders by going out of business and then re-incorporating 

as a ‘‘new’’ transportation service provider. These carriers are a 

blight to the industry and a hazard to the traveling public. 

A 2009 GAO report found that 9 percent of motor carriers placed 

out-of-service by FMCSA between 2007 and 2008 applied as new 

entrants and many of these operators continued to demonstrate a 

pattern of significant violations under their new operating authority. Based on these findings, the Committee directed GAO to evaluate the effectiveness of FMCSA’s new applicant screening programs 

to prevent chameleon carriers from obtaining new operating authority. The GAO audit released in March 2012 found that 

FMCSA’s vetting process is not comprehensive or risk-based, legal 

constraints impede its ability to pursue enforcement action, and 

low penalties are insufficient to discourage chameleon practices. 

GAO recommended that FMCSA develop a risk-based process to 

target the new entrant applications with chameleon characteristics. 

This would allow FMCSA to expand vetting to freight carriers, 
57 

which represent 94 percent of the industry, with few additional resources. FMCSA concurred with these findings and is in the process of developing specifications for the modification of its vetting information technology systems. The Committee directs FMCSA to 

report to the Committee by March 31, 2014, on its implementation 

of a risk-based vetting methodology to identify chameleon motor 

carriers applying for operating authority. The report should include 

timelines and performance goals for expanding vetting to the 

freight sector, the modification of information systems to improve 

the vetting program consistent with the recommendations of GAO 

Report 12–364, and other relevant information. 

High-Risk Carriers.—Since fiscal year 2008, the Committee has 

required reports on the agency’s ability to meet the requirement to 

conduct compliance reviews on all motor carriers identified as highrisk. Since the agency first began reporting its performance to the 

Committee, compliance with this requirement has improved significantly, from completing compliance reviews of 69 percent of highrisk carriers in fiscal year 2008 to 90 percent in the 2012 calendar 

year. 

In December 2010, FMCSA deployed the new Carrier Safety 

Measurement System [CSMS] as part of its CSA program. CSMS 

more precisely identifies motor carriers that pose the highest safety 

risk by quantifying the on-road safety performance of carriers in 

seven Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories [BASICs] when a serious violation has been discovered. CSMS emphasizes on-road safety performance using all safety-based inspection 

violations. Under CSA, and consistent with section 4138 of 

SAFETEA–LU, any motor carrier with certain BASIC alerts for 2 

consecutive months is now labeled ‘‘mandatory’’ under CSMS. Mandatory motor carriers are prioritized for an onsite investigation if 

they have not undergone an investigation in the last 24 months. 

Under FMCSA regulations, carriers identified as mandatory must 

have a compliance review conducted within 1 year. 

With the implementation of the new CSMS system, the related 

statutory mandate to inspect high-risk carriers is out of date and 

does not reflect current programmatic terminology. Therefore, the 

Committee has included a technical correction to reflect the modernization of the program in section 132 of the Administrative Provisions for FMCSA. The Committee expects FMCSA to continue to 

prioritize these carriers for inspection and directs the agency to 

provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with 

an updated report on its ability to meet its requirements to evaluate mandatory carriers by April 2014 for the preceding fiscal year. 

ADA Compliance.—For several years, this Committee has prodded FMCSA to enforce DOT’s own Americans with Disability Act 

[ADA] regulations for over-the-road curbside operators. Congress 

had to pass a law to compel the agency to accept its responsibility 

to deny or revoke operating authority based on an operator’s inability or unwillingness to meet DOT’s ADA regulations. The Committee is pleased to find that FMCSA has developed guidelines and 

set conditions to suspend or revoke operating authority based on 

ADA non-compliance. These requirements have been integrated 

into the new entrant safety audit process and enforcement software. Since 2009, 185 ADA reviews have been conducted, resulting 
58 

in two companies receiving civil penalties for serious violations. 

The Committee directs FMCSA to report to the Committee by May 

2014 on enforcement actions the agency has taken in the preceding 

fiscal year, including the number of denials or revocations due to 

noncompliance. 

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION OF OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2013 ..................................................................................... ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $19,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Motor Carrier Safety program was established to 

promote motor carrier safety and help States develop motor carrier 

data systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorizations 

from existing unobligated balances of $19,000,000 for border facility improvements and information technology modernization efforts 

for FMCSA operations and programs. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of 

contract authorization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriations, 2013 1 ................................................................................................ $310,000,000 $309,380,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ............................................................................................... 313,000,000 313,000,000 

Committee recommendation ....................................................................................... 317,000,000 317,000,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds. Obligation limitations for Motor Carrier Safety Grants (and the related contract 

authority) are not subject to the sequester. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources for Federal grants 

to support State compliance, enforcement, and other programs. 

Grants are also provided to States for enforcement efforts at both 

the southern and northern borders to ensure that all points of 

entry into the United States are fortified with comprehensive safety measures; improvement of State commercial driver’s license 

[CDL] oversight activities to prevent unqualified drivers from being 

issued CDLs; and the Performance Registration Information Systems and Management [PRISM] program, which links State motor 

vehicle registration systems with carrier safety data in order to 

identify unsafe commercial motor carriers. 
59 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization of 

$317,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended 

limitation is $7,620,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted 

level and $4,000,000 more than the budget request. The Committee 

recommends a separate limitation on obligations for each grant 

program funded under this account with the funding allocation 

identified below. The obligation limitation listed below for the 

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP] includes 

$15,000,000 for High Priority grants and $36,000,000 for New Entrant grants. 

Amount 

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP] ....................................................................................... $222,000,000 

Commercial Driver’s License and Driver Improvement Program ................................................................... 30,000,000 

Border Enforcement Grants ............................................................................................................................ 32,000,000 

Performance and Registration Information System Management [PRISM] grants ....................................... 5,000,000 

Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks [CVISN] grants ..................................................... 25,000,000 

Safety Data Improvement .............................................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

ADMNINSTRATION

Section 130 subjects the funds in this act to section 350 of Public 

Law 107–87 in order to ensure the safety of all cross-border long 

haul operations conducted by Mexican-domiciled commercial carriers. 

Section 131 extends the authority for the Motor Safety Advisory 

Committee to the period of authorization of MAP–21. 

Section 132 makes technical changes to the mandate for highrisk carrier safety inspections to reflect the current programmatic 

terminology of the CSMS system. 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Government’s regulatory role in motor vehicle and 

highway safety began in September of 1966 with the enactment of 

the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the 

Highway Safety Act of 1966. In October 1966, these activities, 

originally under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, 

were transferred to the Department of Transportation to be carried 

out through the National Traffic Safety Bureau within the Federal 

Highway Administration. In March 1970, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation. 

NHTSA is responsible for motor vehicle safety, highway safety 

behavioral programs, motor vehicle information, and automobile 

fuel economy programs. NHTSA’s current programs are authorized 

in five major laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code [U.S.C.]; (2) the 

Highway Safety Act (chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor 
60 

Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act [MVICSA] (part C of 

subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.); the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation [TREAD] Act; (5) the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU]; and (6) Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act [MAP–21]. 

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides for the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for 

vehicles and related equipment and the conduct of supporting research. 

The Highway Safety Act of 1966 established NHTSA’s responsibility for providing States with financial assistance to support coordinated national highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, 

U.S.C.), as well its role in highway safety research, development, 

and demonstration programs (section 403 of title 23, U.S.C.). The 

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–690) authorized 

NHTSA to make grants to States to implement and enforce drunk 

driving prevention programs. 

The MVICSA established NHTSA’s responsibilities for developing 

low-speed collision bumper standards and odometer regulations, as 

well its consumer information activities. Subsequent amendments 

to this law established the agency’s responsibility for administering 

mandatory automotive fuel economy standards, theft prevention 

standards for high theft lines of passenger motor vehicles, and 

automobile content labeling requirements. 

In 2000, the TREAD Act expanded NHTSA’s responsibilities further, requiring the agency to promulgate regulations for the stability of light duty vehicles, tire safety and labeling standards, improving the safety of child restraints, and establishing a child restraint safety rating consumer information program. 

SAFETEA–LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, established support for NHTSA’s high-visibility enforcement efforts, motorcycle safety grants, and child safety and child booster safety incentive grant programs. Finally, SAFETEA–LU adopted new motor 

vehicle safety and information provisions, including rulemaking directions to reduce vehicle rollover crashes and vehicle passenger 

ejections, and improve passenger safety in side impact crashes. 

The most recent surface reauthorization, MAP–21, consolidated 

NHTSA’s grant programs into a new National Priority Safety Program and set target spending rates for grants to States for occupant protection, State traffic safety information systems, impaired 

driving countermeasures, distracted driving, motorcycle safety, 

State graduated driver licensing, and in-vehicle alcohol detection 

device research. The bill also mandates State performance-based 

highway safety plans, and creates a new teenage traffic safety program and Council for Vehicle Electronics, Software, and Engineering Expertise. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

In 2011, the number of overall traffic fatalities was reduced to 

32,367, the lowest level since 1949. While the trend in reduced 

highway fatalities is significant and encouraging, the number remains disturbingly high. The agency and its State partners must 

remain diligent to sustain these improvements as the economy re-
61 

covers and discretionary travel increases. The Committee recommends $848,343,000 for NHTSA to maintain current programs 

and continue its mission to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce 

vehicle-related crashes. This level includes both budget authority 

and limitations on the obligation of contract authority. This funding is $20,000,000 above the President’s request and $39,817,000 

more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

The following table summarizes Committee recommendations: 

Program 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2013 enacted 1 2014 estimate 

Operations and Research .......................................................................... $255,135,000 $266,843,000 $286,843,000 

Highway Traffic Safety Grants ................................................................... 553,391,000 561,500,000 561,500,000 

Total .............................................................................................. 808,526,000 828,343,000 848,343,000 

1 Does not reflect March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

General Fund Highway Trust 

Fund Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2013 1 ............................................................... $139,866,000 $115,269,000 $255,135,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 .............................................................................. 148,343,000 118,500,000 266,843,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 148,343,000 138,500,000 286,843,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These programs support traffic safety programs and related research, demonstrations, technical assistance, and national leadership for highway safety programs conducted by State and local governments, the private sector, universities, research units, and various safety associations and organizations. These highway safety 

programs emphasize alcohol and drug countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law enforcement, emergency medical and 

trauma care systems, traffic records and licensing, State and community traffic safety evaluations, protection of motorcycle riders, 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety, pupil transportation, distracted and 

drowsy driving prevention, young and older driver safety, and improved accident investigation procedures. 

This account also provides funding to implement and operate the 

Problem Driver Pointer System [PDPS] and to improve traffic safety by assisting State motor vehicle administrators in communicating effectively and efficiently with other States to identify 

drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked for serious 

traffic offenses, such as driving under the influence of alcohol or 

other drugs. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $286,843,000 for Operations and Research, which includes funding for the National Driver Register. 

This level of funding is $20,000,000 above the President’s budget 

request and $31,708,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted 

level. Of the total amount recommended for Operations and Re-
62 

search, $148,343,000 is derived from the General Fund and 

$138,500,000 is derived from the Highway Trust Fund, of which 

$5,000,000 is for the National Driver Register. 

The increase above the budget request should be used to address 

NTSB safety recommendations for the prevention of drugged driving, the nationwide deployment of the National Emergency Medical 

Services Information System [NEMSIS], and to increase the number of detailed crash investigations for the National Automotive 

Sampling System [NASS] Crashworthiness Data System [CDS]. 

Drug Impaired Driving.—The elimination of substance impaired 

driving is one of NTSB’s Most Wanted top 10 safety priorities. Substance impaired driving includes drunk and drugged driving. In 

2009, NHTSA published the first roadside survey of drug and alcohol use. The survey found that 16 percent of drivers tested positive 

for drugs that could impair driving. Also in 2009, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that roughly 10.5 million people 

admitted to driving while impaired by illicit drugs. As a result of 

this information, the Office of National Drug Control Policy 

[ONDCP] focused on the prevention of drug impaired driving in the 

2011 National Drug Control Strategy. The strategy advocated making the prevention of drugged driving a national priority on par 

with the prevention of drunk driving. ONDCP recommended that 

NHTSA build upon the existing foundation of alcohol impaired 

driving initiatives to expand public education, data collection and 

the development of improved testing procedures. In addition, the 

NTSB recommended that NHTSA: (1) establish standards for postaccident drug testing and reporting, and (2) develop and disseminate a set of standard practices for drug toxicology testing to 

States. NHTSA is collaborating with ONDCP and the Department 

of Health and Human Services to develop standards for drug testing. The Committee expects NHTSA to work with other Federal 

agencies to address the NTSB recommendations to provide a reliable benchmark to measure the effectiveness of laws, enforcement 

efforts, education, and other countermeasures to address drugged 

driving. 

Furthermore, while progress has been made in the fight against 

drunk driving over the past three decades, the Federal Government, States, and local law enforcement face different challenges in 

their ability to detect drugged driving and measure impairment. 

The Committee directs GAO to conduct a study on the strategies 

that NHTSA, ONDCP, and States have taken to address drug impairment and assess the challenges they face in detecting and reducing drug impaired driving. 

National Emergency Medical Service Information System 

[NEMSIS].—NEMSIS provides uniform information for Emergency 

Medical Services [EMS] directors and administrators to improve 

the provision of emergency medical services. While every State and 

territory has signed a memorandum of understanding acknowledging their support for NEMSIS, the program is only able to serve 

40 States with its current level of funding. The Committee recommendation includes a $3,000,000 increase to expand the program to all 50 States and to make one-time information technology 

improvements to the NEMSIS Technical Assistance Center [TAC]. 
63 

National Automotive Sampling System [NASS].—Since NHTSA’s 

regulatory activities are data driven, the agency and its partners 

rely on real-world crash data to identify potential problems. The 

NASS program provides crash data on a nationally representative 

sample of police-reported motor vehicle crashes and related injuries. The Crashworthiness Data System [CDS], the National Motor 

Vehicle Crash Causation Survey [NMVCCS], and Special Crash Investigations [SCI] are components of NASS that use trained crash 

investigators to perform detailed crash investigations. Crash investigators document scene evidence, vehicle damage, and code all 

crash-related injuries from medical records for each CDS case. The 

statistics-based sample of crash investigations is then weighted to 

represent the over 6 million crashes on U.S. roads annually that 

require a vehicle to be towed from the scene. The information collected is used to evaluate motor vehicle safety standards, inform 

highway safety research to reduce crash consequences, and investigate emerging vehicle safety issues. 

When NASS was created in the 1970s, it was designed by experts 

in data collection and statistical analysis to cover 75 census sites 

with a total of 200 trained investigators operating in teams of two 

to four examining two crashes per week each year. Over time, the 

program has been reduced from 50 to 24 sites and the number of 

crashes investigations has dropped from a high of 6,319 in 1990 to 

4,278 in 2011. The Committee is concerned that the most recent 

year of data from 2011 had the fewest number of investigations 

ever. Safety researchers and automobile manufactures argue that 

the current sample size of 24 census sites and average of 4,500 

crash investigation cases annually is not large enough to identify 

trends or problems at the vehicle make/model level in a timely 

manner. The Committee recognizes that in a constrained fiscal climate there is a balance between increasing the number of crash investigations, having an adequate sample that is representative of 

vehicular crashes across the country, and maintaining the level of 

in-depth data elements that are collected from each crash. The 

Committee directs GAO to evaluate these factors and report to the 

House and Senate Committee on Appropriations on what the optimal range of crash investigations should be to ensure the reliability 

of the NASS program. The Committee expects NHTSA to increase 

the sample size of crash investigations from the 2011 all-time low. 

NASS CDS data serves as the foundation for informed highway 

safety decisionmaking at the Federal, State, and local levels of government and should be more robust. The Committee recommendation also includes $2,000,000 for the one-time purchase of technical 

equipment to enhance and expedite data collection. 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard [CAFE].—NHTSA is 

responsible for setting fuel economy standards for cars and trucks 

sold in the United States to reduce energy consumption. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] is responsible for 

calculating the average fuel economy for each manufacturer. The 

President has directed both agencies to align their research, performance requirements, and regulatory framework to develop a coordinated national program that achieves the requirements of the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [EISA] and the 

Clean Air Act. 
64 

The Committee recommends $7,900,000 for fiscal year 2014 for 

the CAFE program, as requested. Funding will be used to support 

rulemakings for medium- and heavy-duty commercial vehicles and 

to propose fuel economy standards for heavy-duty truck trailers. 

With these funds, NHTSA also intends to begin work on a new consumer information program on vehicle fuel efficiency for mediumduty vehicles as directed in Senate Report 112–83. The Committee 

commends NHTSA for its commitment to this requirement and reiterates its support for completing this work in fiscal year 2014. 

Funds will also be used to initiate a retrospective analysis of fuel 

efficiency rulemakings to assess the accuracy of projections as recommended by GAO, and to conduct technical and economic studies 

to assess the potential to improve vehicle fuel economy for model 

years 2022 and beyond. The Committee instructs NHTSA, in coordination with EPA, to provide a long-range research and regulatory plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

within 60 days of enactment of this act describing the: (1) specific 

research projects that each agency is undertaking, their purpose, 

and intended goal; (2) cost estimates associated with each research 

and regulatory activity; and (3) major milestones and estimated 

completion dates for each activity. The plan should include all recent, current, and future expenditures, starting with fiscal year 

2010, until all final actions are concluded for the regulation of medium and heavy duty trucks for model years 2019–2022. 

Child Hyperthermia Prevention.—The Committee commends 

NHTSA for increasing public awareness of the risks of death and 

serious injury to children from hyperthermia when left unattended 

in vehicles. The Committee supports the agency’s plan to undertake a broader, coordinated national campaign in 2014, along the 

lines of the successful efforts more than a decade ago that convinced more parents and caregivers to place children 12 years of 

age and younger in safer rear seats. A similar effort to prevent 

hyperthermia deaths is justified as there have been more than 500 

of these deaths in vehicles since 1998, an average of 38 per year 

and rising. 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract 

authorization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................................................ $553,391,000 $554,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................................................... 561,500,000 561,500,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 561,500,000 561,500,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. Obligation limitations for Highway Traffic Safety Grants 

(and the related contract authority) are not subject to the sequester. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The most recent surface authorization, MAP–21, reauthorized occupant protection grants, State traffic safety information grants, 

impaired driving countermeasures grants, motorcycle safety grants, 
65 

and consolidated them under a new National Priority Safety Program (23 U.S.C. 405). The bill also created three new grant programs within the National Priority Safety Program: State graduated driver license grants, distracted driving grants, and in-vehicle alcohol detection devise research. 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization of 

$561,500,000 for the highway traffic safety grant programs funded 

under this heading. The recommended limitation is equal to the 

budget estimate and $8,109,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The Committee has also provided the authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization. 

The Committee continues to recommend prohibiting the use of 

section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling 

costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for State, local, or private buildings or structures. 

The authorized funding for administrative expenses and for each 

grant program is as follows: 

Amount 

Highway Safety Programs (section 402) ............................................................................................................. $235,000,000 

Occupant Protection Grants (section 405) .......................................................................................................... 43,520,000 

Distracted Driver Incentive Grants (section 405) ................................................................................................ 23,120,000 

State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grants (section 405) ..................................................... 39,440,000 

Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants (section 405) ................................................................................... 142,800,000 

Motorcyclist Safety Grants (section 405) ............................................................................................................ 4,080,000 

State Graduated Driver Licensing Laws (section 405) ....................................................................................... 13,600,000 

In-Vehicle Alcohol Detection Device Research (section 403h) ............................................................................ 5,440,000 

High Visibility Enforcement (section 2009) ......................................................................................................... 29,000,000 

Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 25,500,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 561,500,000 

Drunk Driving Prevention.—Drunk driving deaths continue to be 

the leading cause of highway fatalities. Although the number of 

drunk driving fatalities has dropped recently, they continue to represent 31 percent of all highway deaths—a total of 9,878 people in 

2011. Numerous national, State, and local efforts are in place to 

prevent these fatalities, including successful high-visibility law enforcement campaigns, incentive grants to promote further State 

adoption of ignition interlock laws and advanced technology research. These activities are among the components of the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, which unites Mothers Against 

Drunk Driving, major auto manufacturers, law enforcement, and 

other stakeholders who share the goal of eliminating drunk driving. 

Since 2008, NHTSA has partnered with leading automobile manufacturers in the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety [ACTS] on 

an ambitious research program to develop in-vehicle technology to 

prevent alcohol-impaired driving that is publicly acceptable, unobtrusive for drivers below the legal limit of .08 BAC, reliable, and 

relatively inexpensive. The goal is to make such technologies available for voluntary installation in production vehicles within 5 to 8 
66 

years. To date, NHTSA and ACTS have made significant progress 

towards achieving this goal by demonstrating the technical viability of driver alcohol sensing systems. They have completed preliminary device performance specifications, conducted a technical review of potential technologies, and finalized proof-of-concept research to identify technologies which hold the most promise. This 

has led to identification of two technologies—breath-based and 

touch-based—which are now being developed for installation in a 

research vehicle for on-the-road testing and evaluation starting in 

fiscal year 2014. The Committee strongly supports this promising 

research partnership, which has the potential to prevent thousands 

of drunk driving deaths annually. The Committee recommends a 

total of $5,440,000 for ACTS to continue this research, which is 

consistent with the authorized level under MAP–21 and the budget 

request. This level of funding is $140,000 more than the fiscal year 

2013 enacted level. 

High-Visibility Enforcement Campaigns.—Ongoing national highvisibility enforcement campaigns for increasing seat belt use (Click 

It or Ticket) and reducing drunk driving (Drive Sober or Get Pulled 

Over) are successful highway safety initiatives. The Committee 

supports NHTSA’s commitment to also develop a campaign to help 

enforce state distracted driving prevention laws; however, it should 

not do so at the expense of current levels of investment in the national seat belt use and drunk driving prevention efforts. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Section 140 makes available $130,000 of obligation authority for 

section 402 of title 23 U.S.C. to pay for travel and expenses for 

State management reviews and highway safety staff core competency development training. 

Section 141 exempts obligation authority, made available in previous Public Laws from limitations on obligations for the current 

year. 

Section 142 prohibits the use of funds to implement section 404 

of title 23, United States Code. 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an operating 

Administration within the Department of Transportation on April 

1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of Railroad Safety from the 

Interstate Commerce Commission, the Office of High Speed Ground 

Transportation from the Department of Commerce, and the Alaska 

Railroad from the Department of the Interior. FRA is responsible 

for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve 

safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry. 

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

and other financial assistance programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry’s physical infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad Administration. 
67 

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $178,239,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 184,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 184,500,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA rail 

safety activities and all other administrative and operating activities related to staff and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $184,500,000 for Safety and Operations for fiscal year 2014, which is equal to the funding included 

for these activities in the budget request and $6,261,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The bill specifies that 

$12,400,000 shall remain available until expended. This funding 

covers the cost of the Automated Track Inspection Program, the 

Railroad Safety Information System, the Southeastern Transportation Study, research and development activities, contract support, 

and Alaska Railroad liabilities. 

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $34,930,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 35,250,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 35,250,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Railroad Research and Development program provides 

science and technology support for FRA’s rail safety rulemaking 

and enforcement efforts. It also supports technological advances in 

conventional and high-speed railroads, as well as evaluations of the 

role of railroads in the Nation’s transportation system. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,250,000 for 

railroad research and development, which is equal to the budget request and $320,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing [RRIF] 

program was established by Public Law 109–178 to provide direct 

loans and loan guarantees to State and local governments, Government-sponsored entities, and railroads. Credit assistance under the 

program may be used for rehabilitating or developing rail equipment and facilities. No Federal appropriation is required to implement the program, because a non-Federal partner may contribute 

the subsidy amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in 

the form of a credit risk premium. The Committee maintains bill 

language specifying that no new direct loans or loan guarantee 

commitments may be made using Federal funds for the payment of 

any credit premium amount during fiscal year 2014. 
68 

The Committee directs FRA to provide a summary of loan activity for the preceding fiscal years in its fiscal year 2015 budget justification. At a minimum, FRA should detail the number of loans 

pending and issued, and the processing time for these loans. The 

Committee is concerned that the average time for processing RRIF 

loans is 695 days. The Committee also directs the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to analyze the RRIF program and report 

its findings to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

no later than 1 year following the enactment of this act. The GAO’s 

analysis should include an assessment of FRA’s processes to review 

and approve loan requests; an evaluation of the impediments to the 

agency’s ability to meet the statutory requirement to make a final 

determination of loan requests within 90 days (45 U.S.C. 822(i)); 

and recommendations for ways to improve the program. 

THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) operates 

intercity passenger rail services in 46 States and the District of Columbia, in addition to serving as a contractor in various capacities 

for several commuter rail agencies. Congress created Amtrak in the 

Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (Public Law 91–518) in response to private carriers’ inability to profitably operate intercity 

passenger rail service. Thereafter, Amtrak assumed the common 

carrier obligations of the private railroads in exchange for the right 

to priority access to their tracks for incremental cost. 

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... $1,533,164,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 3 ......................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,452,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2 Includes emergency funding of $118,000,000 in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 

(division A of Public Law 113–2). 3The President’s budget would establish three new trust fund accounts for Current Passenger 

Rail Service, the Rail Service Improvement Program, and Railroad Research, Development and 

Technology totaling $6,414,750,000, of which $2,700,000,000 would be available to Amtrak 

under the new Current Passenger Rail Service Account for both capital and operating expenses. 

The Committee recommends $1,452,000,000 for the FRA to make 

grants to Amtrak. This amount is $81,164,000 less than the fiscal 

year 2013 enacted level. However, $181,000,000 in emergency funding was provided in fiscal year 2013 for recovery from Hurricane 

Sandy and other disasters. The Committee recommendation is 

$1,452,000,000 more than the request. The Administration’s budget 

request would shift funding for Amtrak into a new $2,700,000,000 

Current Passenger Rail Service program that would be supported 

by a new dedicated Rail Account of the Transportation Trust Fund. 

Of the total amount recommended by the Committee, up to 

$390,000,000 may be used for operating grants, up to $199,000,000 

may be used for debt service payments, and not less than 

$75,000,000 shall be used to bring stations into compliance with 

the Americans with Disabilities Act. Of the amounts available for 

capital, not less than $15,000,000 shall be used for the Gateway 

Program. Furthermore, up to one-half of 1 percent of the total 

funding level is available for FRA to conduct oversight of Amtrak’s 

operating and capital expenditures, and up to one-half of 1 percent 
69 

of the total funding level is available for the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. 

For operating grants, the Committee directs FRA to make a 

timely disbursement of funds no more frequently than once per 

quarter to maximize the Corporation’s ability to efficiently manage 

its cash flow. For capital grants, the Committee recommends the 

continuation of an initial allocation of $200,000,000 for a working 

capital fund, with the remaining amounts to be made available on 

a reimbursable basis. 

The Committee maintains requirements for Amtrak to submit a 

business plan and 5-year Financial Plan for fiscal year 2014. The 

Corporation shall continue to submit a budget request for fiscal 

year 2015 to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

in similar format and substance to those submitted by executive 

agencies of the Federal Government. 

ADA Compliance.—The Committee continues to believe that compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act [ADA] is essential to ensuring that all people have equal access 

to transportation services. In February 2009, Amtrak presented its 

plan for achieving compliance with the ADA over a 5-year period. 

Since then, the corporation has found it challenging to define the 

scope of projects to comply with ADA and complete work agreements with its partners at each station. In September 2011, DOT 

issued a final rule amending its ADA regulations for level boarding 

at passenger rail stations. The rule requires Amtrak to provide 

level entry boarding at stations where the tracks are not shared 

with freight rail, but allows Amtrak to provide alternative boarding 

mechanisms at tracks shared with freight rail. Amtrak had to reevaluate and revise all plans, design specifications, engineering requirements, and construction estimates and submit a new ADA 

compliance plan. 

Amtrak reports that the Corporation has some degree of ADA responsibility at 390 stations. Amtrak will provide mobile lifts at the 

110 stations that have less than 7,500 riders annually. The remaining 280 stations that have more than 7,500 passengers annually 

will need some type of level boarding solution. Many of the platforms in these stations are owned by freight railroads and reconciling the requirements of existing freight traffic with the needs of 

passengers is a complex challenge. The Committee encourages Amtrak to use its funds to address compliance requirements that are 

the responsibility of other parties at the stations it serves where 

the work involved is not more than 10 percent of the cost of all 

ADA compliance work at that station, and where doing so would 

expedite completion of its compliance efforts and be a more efficient 

use of resources than compelling those parties to act. 

With the level of funding recommended by the Committee, Amtrak intends to advance construction at 45 stations and to finalize 

planning and design requirements for another 75 stations. By the 

end of the fiscal year 2013, Amtrak expects to complete work in a 

total of 17 stations. 
70 

CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR NATIONAL HIGH PERFORMANCE PASSENGER

RAIL SERVICE

Appropriations, 2013 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2014 1 ......................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $100,000,000 

1The budget request includes $3,660,000,000 for a new Rail Service Improvement Program 

to perform similar activities. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The funding provided under this heading is available for several 

programs authorized under the Passenger Rail and Investment and 

Improvement Act (PRIIA), including grants for intercity passenger 

rail and grants to reduce congestion or facilitate ridership growth 

along passenger rail corridors. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for grants to support 

high performance passenger rail service. No funds were provided 

for this program in fiscal year 2013. The budget request proposed 

$3,660,000,000 for similar activities in the new Rail Service Improvement Program. The funds provided are limited to supporting 

the improvement of existing passenger rail service and up to 

$20,000,000 may be used to support multistate planning efforts. 

Positive Train Control.—The Committee notes that positive train 

control systems are an eligible expense for capital investment 

grants to support intercity passenger rail service as authorized by 

section 24402 of title 49, United States Code. Positive train control 

systems are designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, over-speed 

derailments, incursions into established work zone limits, and the 

movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position. 

Passenger railroads in the United States are required to deploy 

these systems on an aggressive schedule. The Committee encourages the Federal Railroad Administration to consider an applicant’s 

obligations to comply with Federal rail safety requirements, consistent with section 24402(c), when evaluating grant project requests. 

Transition Assistance for State-Supported Services.—Section 209 

of PRIIA requires Amtrak, in consultation with the Secretary and 

State Governors, to develop and implement a single nationwide 

standard methodology for allocating the operating and capital costs 

among States and Amtrak along State-supported corridors. This requires that States now bear the predominant financial responsibility for these services beginning in fiscal year 2014. Many States 

are challenged to find the necessary resources to keep passenger 

rail services running during this transition period due to the timing of State budgets and ongoing negotiations with Amtrak. The 

Committee notes that the capital costs for State-supported corridor 

services are an eligible expense under for capital investment grants 

as authorized by section 24402 of title 49. 
71 

NEXT GENERATION HIGH SPEED RAIL

(RESCISSION)

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

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

(RESCISSION)

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

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 150 permanently prohibits funds for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation from being available if the Corporation 

contracts for services, at or from any location outside of the United 

States, which were, as of July 1, 2006, performed by a full-time or 

part-time Amtrak employee within the United States. 

Section 151 allows the Secretary to receive and use cash or spare 

parts to repair and replace damaged track inspection cars. Section 152 limits overtime to $35,000 per employee. However, 

Amtrak’s president may waive this restriction for specific employees for safety or operational efficiency reasons. If the cap is waived, 

Amtrak is required to notify to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations quarterly of the reason for such waiver. 

Section 153 continues the conditions under which the Secretary 

may approve operating grants to Amtrak. 

Section 154 clarifies that the grant conditions under Public Law 

113–2 for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation apply to 

the scope of the Act rather than any other act. 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Transit Administration was established as a component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization Plan 

No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred most of the 

functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act of 1964, as 

amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The missions of the Federal Transit Administration [FTA] are: to help develop improved 

mass transportation systems and practices; to support the inclusion 

of public transportation in community and regional planning to 

support economic development; to provide mobility for Americans 

who depend on transit for transportation in both metropolitan and 

rural areas; to maximize the productivity and efficiency of transportation systems; and to provide assistance to State and local governments and agencies in financing such services and systems. 

A growing number of Americans depend on public transit to get 

to work, school, medical appointments, and elsewhere. In 2012, 

they took 10.5 billion trips on public transportation, more than a 

billion rides more than they took in 2004, and just slightly below 

the ridership peak in 2008. While the recession led to a decline in 

transit use in 2009 and 2010, ridership has since recovered with 
72 

an improving economy. Growth is also driven by investments communities and the Federal Government made to expand transit options. This is especially true of rail transit, where ridership grew 

by more than a third in the last decade as new rail lines opened 

in almost two dozen cities, including San Diego, Phoenix, Dallas 

and Salt Lake City. 

The most recent authorization for transit programs was contained in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

[MAP–21], which will expire on September 30, 2014. MAP–21 expanded FTA’s responsibilities for ensuring the safety of public transit; providing financial support to transit systems during emergencies, including natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes; 

and supporting core capacity improvements in existing fixed guideway systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total gross program 

level of $11,057,681,041 is provided, an increase of $349,427,041 

above the fiscal year 2013 level. This level is consistent with the 

request. The recommendation includes offsets of $285,710,898 that 

lower the net cost of FTA programs to $10,765,670,102 in fiscal 

year 2014. This level of offsets is $134,372,889 above the 

$151,388,009 in offsets accompanying the request. These additional 

offsets were included in the Committee’s fiscal year 2013 recommendations, and because FTA is operating under a continuing 

resolution this year, remain available for use. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $102,507,574 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 109,888,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 109,888,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Administrative expenses fund personnel, contract resources, information technology, space management, travel, training, and 

other administrative expenses necessary to carry out FTA’s mission 

to support, improve, and help ensure the safety of public transportation systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $109,888,000 for the agency’s salaries and administrative expenses. The recommended level 

of funding is $7,380,426 above the fiscal year 2013 enacted level to 

support new responsibilities assigned to FTA in the most recent authorization act, MAP–21, as well as to cover the costs of salaries 

and inflation. 

The Committee has recognized for several years now that FTA’s 

staffing has not kept up with its increasing responsibilities. Previous reviews—the most recent in 2008—concluded that FTA required additional staff to support its growing workload and improve its ability to perform project oversight, contract administration, and technical assistance. The Committee recognizes MAP–21 
73 

adds significant new burdens. FTA is in the process of standing up 

a new safety office, and will need to prepare almost three dozen 

new or updated regulations and circulars to implement the wideranging changes reflected in the latest reauthorization. 

With its new safety responsibilities, FTA will need to create regulations, training programs, and reporting requirements for the nation’s rail transit systems. While public transit remains a remarkably safe mode of transportation, accidents do still happen, such as 

the collision between an automobile and Houston Metro light rail 

vehicle last September that injured 11. Two months later, in November, two Chicago Transit Authority trains collided, sending two 

to the hospital. Using its new authority, FTA may now work with 

a local State Safety Oversight Agency to conduct investigations for 

accidents like these. The Committee recommendation includes 

funding for 27 additional FTE to support this work. 

The recommendation also provides an additional 10 FTE to help 

rebalance FTA’s workforce with its workload. These staff will allow 

the agency to address Office of Inspector General concerns about 

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise compliance; support the new 

asset management requirements in section 5326 of MAP–21; and 

to conduct regulatory impact analysis and cost benefit analysis required by Executive Orders 12866 and 13422. 

The Committee notes FTA provided limited information in its 

Congressional Justification for Administrative Expenses on the 

number and location of positions it is requesting in fiscal year 

2014. While this information has been provided to the Committee 

upon request, greater information on the composition of staff increases should be provided as part of the justification. 

Asset Management.—In 2008, the Committee required FTA to assess the condition of the Nation’s transit rail infrastructure. In 

April 2009, the agency reported that one-third of transit agencies’ 

assets were either in marginal or poor condition, and that significant reinvestment is necessary to address the backlog of capital 

needs. Compounding the resource challenge is the general weakness of much of the transit sector’s ability to manage capital assets 

strategically. Asset management programs would enable transit 

agencies to take inventory of their capital assets, determine the 

condition of those assets, use objective and quantitative analysis to 

estimate reinvestment needs over the long term, and prioritize 

their capital investments using the information and analysis. 

In 2010, the Committee directed FTA to assume a leadership role 

in improving asset management in transit agencies. Specifically, 

the Committee instructed FTA to develop standards for asset management plans with an emphasis on maintaining safety, provide 

technical assistance to transit agencies on asset management, and 

conduct a pilot program to identify best practices in the field. 

In August 2011, FTA awarded demonstration funding to six transit agencies. One transit system, the Utah Transit Authority, has 

already completed its project and the other pilot projects should be 

completed by the end of calendar year 2013. The Committee understands FTA will review the final reports of each project as they are 

completed, and share the information with Congress and the industry. FTA also recently completed a detailed Transit Asset Manage-
74 

ment Guidebook to help grantees develop asset management best 

practices. 

MAP–21 strengthens FTA’s role in this area by requiring it to 

implement a new National Transit Asset Management System and 

issue a rule to establish performance measures to assess the condition of FTA grantees’ assets, including equipment, rolling stock, infrastructure, and facilities. FTA will release the Advanced Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking for public comment later this summer. 

The Committee recommendation includes not less than $1,000,000 

to support these efforts, consistent with the request. 

Standard Vehicles.—For the past several years, FTA has worked 

with the American Public Transportation Association [APTA] to 

broker broad agreement on a standard transit bus and light rail vehicle that could cut transit agencies’ future capital costs. The success of this initiative will expedite transit vehicle procurement, 

while providing the maximum benefit from taxpayers’ investment 

in transit systems. With FTA’s assistance, APTA and the transit 

industry have developed and adopted voluntary, consensus standards for transit buses and rail cars. The hope is that transit agencies will use these vehicle design and on-board equipment specifications when purchasing new vehicles, resulting in better pricing and 

the eventual introduction of standardized transit vehicles and vehicle sub-components. The Committee supports these efforts and directs FTA to provide a report to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations by February 3, 2014, on its progress to date, the 

degree to which public transit systems have been receptive to the 

new standards, and other areas where the development of common 

standards would benefit the industry. 

Streetcar Manufacturing Study.—As of 2009, there were 54 transit agencies operating at least one rail transit line, and the number 

of such systems is increasing beyond the large metropolitan areas 

which dominate the current market for heavy and light rail streetcars. However, foreign-based companies have produced almost all 

of the 8,000 new rail cars purchased by transit agencies, including 

streetcars. The Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation 

to evaluate the feasibility of strengthening domestic manufacturing 

of certain specialized rail cars, particularly heritage street cars produced by transit authorities, by allowing them to compete, bid, or 

offer contract proposals to public and private transportation service 

providers. The report shall include an assessment of the anticipated impact on existing domestic manufacturers, a projection of 

the market demand, and recommendations on how to grow domestic manufacturing capabilities in this industry. The Committee directs the Secretary to provide this report to the Senate Committee 

on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, and the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations by March 28, 2014. 

Project Management Oversight [PMO] Activities.—The Committee 

directs FTA to continue to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the quarterly PMO reports for each 

project with a full funding grant agreement. 

Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].—MAP–21 requires 

that FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on Transportation and In-
75 

frastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking, 30 days before 

executing a full funding grant agreement. In its notification to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Committee 

directs FTA to submit the following information: (1) a copy of the 

proposed full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual 

Federal appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly and 

total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated for 

future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2018; (4) a detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and anticipated FFGAs 

against the program authorization, by individual project; (5) an 

evaluation of whether the alternatives analysis made by the applicant fully assessed all the viable alternatives; (6) a financial analysis of the project’s cost and sponsor’s ability to finance the project, 

which shall be conducted by an independent examiner and which 

shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and finance 

plan; (7) the source and security of all public and private sector financing; (8) the project’s operating plan, which enumerates the 

project’s future revenue and ridership forecasts; and (9) a listing of 

all planned contingencies and possible risks associated with the 

project. 

The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations in writing 30 days before approving 

schedule, scope, or budget changes to any full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to all changes shall include any 

budget revisions or program changes that materially alter the 

project as originally stipulated in the FFGA, including any proposed change in rail car procurement. 

The Committee directs FTA to continue to provide a monthly 

new starts project update to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations, detailing the status of each project. This update 

should include FTA’s plans and specific milestone schedules for advancing projects, especially those within 2 years of a proposed full 

funding grant agreement. It should also highlight and explain any 

potential cost and schedule changes affecting projects. In addition, 

FTA should notify the Committees 10 days before any project in 

the new starts process is given approval by FTA to advance to preliminary engineering or final design. 

FORMULA GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Obligation limitation 

(trust fund) 

Appropriations, 2013 1 ..................................................................................................................................... $8,461,044,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 .................................................................................................................................... 8,595,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................................................ 8,595,000,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Communities use Formula Grants funds for bus and railcar purchases, facility repair and construction, maintenance, and where eligible, planning and operating expenses. The Formula Grants account includes funding for the following programs: transit-oriented 
76 

development; planning programs; urbanized area formula grants; 

enhanced mobility for seniors and individuals with disabilities; formula grants for rural areas; a bus testing facility; a national transit institute; the national transit database; state of good repairs 

grants; bus and bus facilities formulas grants; and growing States 

and high-density States formula grants. Set-asides from formula 

funds are directed to a grant program for each State with rail systems not regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration to meet 

the requirements for a State Safety Oversight program. The account also provides funding to support passenger ferry services and 

public transportation on Indian reservations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting obligations in the transit 

formula and bus grants account in fiscal year 2014 to 

$8,595,000,000. The recommendation is consistent with the authorized level in MAP–21, and is an increase of $133,956,000 above the 

fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

The Committee recommends $9,500,000,000 in authority to liquidate contract authorizations. This amount is sufficient to cover 

outstanding obligations from this account. 

The following table displays the distribution of obligation limitation among the program categories of formula grants: 

DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FORMULA GRANTS 

Formula grants 

(obligation limitation) 

Section 

number 

Fiscal year— 

2013 2014 

Transit Oriented Development ........................................................... 20005(b) $9,980,000 $10,000,000 

Planning Programs ............................................................................ 5305 126,646,200 128,800,000 

Urbanized Area Formula Grants ........................................................ 5307 4,389,154,100 4,458,650,000 

Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities ...... 5310 254,290,400 258,300,000 

Formula Grants for Rural Areas ........................................................ 5311 598,301,000 607,800,000 

Bus Testing Facility ........................................................................... 5318 2,994,000 3,000,000 

National Transit Institute .................................................................. 5322(d) 4,990,000 5,000,000 

National Transit Database ................................................................. 5335 3,842,300 3,850,000 

State of Good Repair Grants ............................................................. 5337 2,132,027,400 2,165,900,000 

Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Grants ............................................ 5339 421,156,000 427,800,000 

Growing States and High Density States Formula Grants ................ 5340 517,662,600 525,900,000 

Total ...................................................................................... .................... 8,461,044,000 8,595,000,000 

The following table displays the State-by-State distribution of 

funds for several of the major program categories in the formula 

grants account: 
77 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION MAP–21—FISCAL YEAR 2014 PRESIDENT’S BUDGET 

State 

Section 5303 

Metropolitan 

planning 

Section 5304 

Statewide 

planning 

Section 5307 and 

5340 Urbanized 

areas formula 

Section 5310 

Enhanced 

mobility of 

seniors and 

individuals with 

disabilities 

Section 5311 

and 5340 

Formula grants 

for rural areas 

Section 

5311(b)(3) 

RTAP 

Section 

5311(c)(2) 

Appalachian 

Dev. Public 

Trans. Assist. 

Program 

Section 

5311(c)(1) 

Indian reserv. 

formula 

Section 5337 

State of good 

repair 

Section 5339 

Bus and bus 

facilities 

formula 

Fiscal year 2014 

President’s budget 

State total 

Alabama ..................... $845,029 $220,656 $23,432,869 $4,180,123 $15,465,881 $257,122 $5,000,000 $7,072 .......................... $3,667,525 $53,076,277 Alaska ........................ 424,042 110,727 15,187,590 413,243 8,075,713 95,139 ...................... 413,844 $18,565,930 1,899,705 45,185,933 American Samoa ........ ...................... ...................... .......................... 14,005 307,682 14,230 ...................... ...................... .......................... 506,872 842,789 Arizona ....................... 2,434,325 485,642 70,788,122 5,096,238 11,515,087 164,318 ...................... 1,784,374 2,376,022 8,669,757 103,313,885 Arkansas .................... 425,323 109,396 12,380,892 2,478,576 11,995,711 202,758 ...................... ...................... 236,235 2,537,432 30,366,323 California ................... 15,901,099 3,172,063 758,944,431 28,620,059 27,287,154 364,996 ...................... 593,379 334,351,611 65,350,442 1,234,585,234 Colorado ..................... 1,780,573 366,807 71,677,731 3,599,127 10,773,136 155,628 ...................... ...................... 8,820,414 8,188,415 105,361,831 Connecticut ................ 1,101,856 287,714 80,239,114 3,327,601 2,995,615 106,748 ...................... ...................... 49,343,597 5,470,714 142,872,958 Delaware .................... 424,042 110,727 14,802,756 767,308 1,690,033 86,212 ...................... ...................... .......................... 2,333,058 20,214,134 District of Columbia .. 424,042 110,727 89,070,044 368,180 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 125,052,562 4,827,034 219,852,589 Florida ........................ 7,639,679 1,560,037 234,997,790 19,520,107 15,514,774 249,805 ...................... ...................... 38,668,444 25,071,585 343,222,221 Georgia ....................... 3,016,708 601,079 89,161,818 6,301,622 20,860,192 327,811 592,000 ...................... 49,482,799 8,893,125 179,237,154 Guam ......................... ...................... ...................... .......................... 53,015 795,410 22,395 ...................... ...................... .......................... 506,872 1,377,693 Hawaii ........................ 424,042 110,727 32,892,281 1,178,661 2,613,201 94,647 ...................... ...................... 1,063,473 5,151,606 43,528,637 Idaho .......................... 424,042 110,727 10,147,352 1,352,968 7,625,668 125,119 ...................... 1,550,654 .......................... 2,363,870 23,700,400 Illinois ........................ 5,057,190 973,667 270,055,941 9,798,538 16,306,844 266,208 ...................... ...................... 204,402,084 17,473,535 524,334,008 Indiana ....................... 1,724,643 364,065 49,653,930 5,396,153 16,034,889 272,282 ...................... ...................... 14,435,733 5,388,250 93,269,945 Iowa ........................... 461,149 120,416 19,325,721 2,468,915 12,246,558 203,884 ...................... ...................... .......................... 3,199,365 38,026,008 Kansas ....................... 625,221 135,832 15,752,769 2,206,804 11,095,543 175,914 ...................... 127,895 .......................... 2,883,249 33,003,227 Kentucky ..................... 698,260 168,770 24,847,233 3,489,347 16,635,304 265,490 1,764,000 ...................... .......................... 3,979,371 51,847,775 Louisiana ................... 1,010,415 263,842 33,752,325 3,950,254 11,379,561 201,963 ...................... ...................... 3,884,985 4,670,038 59,113,383 Maine ......................... 424,042 110,727 12,108,427 1,155,373 7,102,451 141,199 ...................... 426,908 3,823,959 1,707,690 27,000,776 Maryland .................... 2,386,103 457,657 126,355,197 4,412,369 5,710,453 138,876 636,000 ...................... 52,150,917 8,369,955 200,617,527 Massachusetts ........... 2,837,001 561,075 205,030,550 6,077,073 3,657,252 114,046 ...................... ...................... 124,263,232 9,443,977 351,984,206 Michigan .................... 2,975,112 622,514 87,271,147 9,222,281 21,037,985 325,459 ...................... ...................... 1,043,303 10,592,489 133,090,291 Minnesota .................. 1,537,443 291,895 58,298,392 3,632,107 15,453,651 239,309 ...................... 1,134,408 11,766,763 6,559,996 98,913,965 Mississippi ................. 424,042 110,727 7,815,235 2,140,395 14,056,059 233,009 254,000 939,836 .......................... 2,029,970 28,003,272 Missouri ..................... 1,648,889 321,693 51,448,450 4,951,095 17,571,744 268,480 ...................... ...................... 13,542,097 5,920,139 95,672,588 Montana ..................... 424,042 110,727 4,403,474 897,186 9,953,954 121,308 ...................... 2,554,430 .......................... 1,683,863 20,148,985 N. Mariana Islands .... ...................... ...................... .......................... 11,060 295,476 14,101 ...................... ...................... .......................... 506,872 827,510 Nebraska .................... 424,042 110,727 11,557,011 1,260,901 7,653,571 130,498 ...................... 256,997 .......................... 2,528,378 23,922,125 Nevada ....................... 1,147,555 221,692 35,569,089 1,823,328 6,373,426 92,768 ...................... 11,487 724,007 5,175,459 51,138,811 
78 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION MAP–21—FISCAL YEAR 2014 PRESIDENT’S BUDGET—Continued 

State 

Section 5303 

Metropolitan 

planning 

Section 5304 

Statewide 

planning 

Section 5307 and 

5340 Urbanized 

areas formula 

Section 5310 

Enhanced 

mobility of 

seniors and 

individuals with 

disabilities 

Section 5311 

and 5340 

Formula grants 

for rural areas 

Section 

5311(b)(3) 

RTAP 

Section 

5311(c)(2) 

Appalachian 

Dev. Public 

Trans. Assist. 

Program 

Section 

5311(c)(1) 

Indian reserv. 

formula 

Section 5337 

State of good 

repair 

Section 5339 

Bus and bus 

facilities 

formula 

Fiscal year 2014 

President’s budget 

State total 

New Hampshire .......... 424,042 110,727 6,631,756 1,069,110 3,953,924 118,637 ...................... ...................... .......................... 1,968,985 14,277,181 New Jersey ................. 4,104,422 769,575 338,953,652 7,501,002 4,060,050 117,747 ...................... ...................... 170,997,635 19,019,266 545,523,348 New Mexico ................ 424,042 110,727 23,489,199 1,712,306 10,281,226 139,015 ...................... 251,989 .......................... 2,892,879 39,301,383 New York .................... 7,751,050 1,520,012 752,987,937 16,359,050 20,248,306 328,328 200,000 ...................... 606,806,474 35,061,710 1,441,262,868 North Carolina ........... 2,088,501 496,557 64,980,271 6,617,360 26,132,002 402,460 1,450,000 776,104 893,094 8,150,712 111,987,060 North Dakota .............. 424,042 110,727 4,908,031 593,118 5,068,472 95,851 ...................... 864,346 .......................... 1,735,161 13,799,748 Ohio ............................ 3,440,254 714,990 99,963,274 10,395,027 23,096,739 378,801 964,000 ...................... 22,122,796 10,929,389 172,005,270 Oklahoma ................... 624,175 162,986 17,416,743 2,952,731 14,661,005 224,045 ...................... 6,556,851 .......................... 3,056,440 45,654,975 Oregon ........................ 1,105,695 227,116 54,301,443 3,294,644 11,983,259 177,171 ...................... 886,738 17,647,006 5,992,211 95,615,283 Pennsylvania .............. 4,132,234 851,906 191,527,763 12,305,967 21,775,891 357,021 4,788,000 ...................... 135,188,002 14,705,555 385,632,339 Puerto Rico ................ 1,568,389 320,736 52,482,201 5,471,323 1,911,048 91,311 ...................... ...................... 6,261,601 5,396,997 73,503,607 Rhode Island .............. 508,178 110,727 21,242,810 1,039,439 568,853 72,020 ...................... ...................... 109,986 2,656,044 26,308,056 South Carolina ........... 948,519 244,829 24,671,286 3,664,949 12,537,258 224,952 200,000 86,194 .......................... 3,858,322 46,436,310 South Dakota ............. 424,042 110,727 3,877,088 657,729 6,317,678 108,988 ...................... 2,194,670 .......................... 1,673,386 15,364,307 Tennessee .................. 1,395,132 327,450 49,312,154 5,254,507 18,436,951 291,797 1,110,000 ...................... 1,311,219 5,415,332 82,854,542 Texas .......................... 8,973,291 1,798,031 276,426,257 16,887,477 40,565,990 551,466 ...................... ...................... 30,582,749 28,668,912 404,454,174 Utah ........................... 976,944 212,887 44,627,901 1,601,702 6,246,959 105,044 ...................... 34,116 7,550,707 4,722,598 66,078,857 Vermont ...................... 424,042 110,727 2,391,665 504,238 3,486,351 104,774 ...................... ...................... .......................... 1,427,992 8,449,789 Virgin Islands ............ ...................... ...................... 1,093,756 175,317 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .......................... 624,166 1,893,239 Virginia ...................... 2,611,116 529,887 78,429,076 5,622,024 14,722,750 254,178 1,150,000 ...................... 36,998,121 8,678,457 148,995,609 Washington ................ 2,373,326 478,401 136,863,050 5,760,932 12,363,206 196,467 ...................... 1,780,182 53,912,230 13,691,263 227,419,057 West Virginia ............. 424,042 110,727 9,578,344 2,236,471 7,804,338 161,449 1,892,000 ...................... 974,548 2,106,647 25,288,566 Wisconsin ................... 1,371,166 301,132 48,018,139 4,707,234 15,708,648 261,775 ...................... 1,767,526 764,374 6,326,364 79,226,358 Wyoming ..................... 424,043 110,727 2,029,266 460,832 6,242,252 97,578 ...................... ...................... .......................... 1,490,601 10,855,299 Unallocated ................ ...................... ...................... 5,303 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .......................... ...................... ..........................

Subtotal ............ 106,010,643 22,145,357 4,823,170,742 257,008,500 618,253,133 10,332,600 20,000,000 25,000,000 2,150,118,711 427,800,000 8,459,839,687 

Oversight .................... 532,717 111,283 33,437,875 1,291,500 3,039,000 ...................... ...................... ...................... 15,781,289 ...................... 54,193,664 

Subtotal ............ 106,543,360 22,256,640 4,856,608,617 258,300,000 621,292,133 10,332,600 20,000,000 25,000,000 2,165,900,000 427,800,000 8,514,033,350 
79 

Ferry Discretionary 

Program ................. ...................... ...................... 30,000,000 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .......................... ...................... 30,000,000 

State Safety Oversight 

Program ................. ...................... ...................... 22,293,250 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .......................... ...................... 22,293,250 

Tribal discretionary 

Program ................. ...................... ...................... .......................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 5,000,000 .......................... ...................... 5,000,000 

National RTAP ............ ...................... ...................... .......................... ...................... ...................... 1,823,400 ...................... ...................... .......................... ...................... 1,823,400 

Total .................. 106,543,360 22,256,640 4,908,901,867 258,300,000 621,292,133 12,156,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 2,165,900,000 427,800,000 8,573,150,000 
80 

TRANSIT RESEARCH PROGRAMS

General fund 

Appropriations, 2013 1 ..................................................................................................................................... $43,912,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 .................................................................................................................................... 49,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................................................ 55,300,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides assistance to activities that are designed to develop solutions that improve public transportation. As 

the Federal agency responsible for transit, FTA assumes a leadership role in supporting research intended to identify innovative 

technologies and successful strategies to increase ridership, improve personal mobility and access, increase efficiency and safety, 

and demonstrate new technologies that promote clean energy and 

improve air quality. 

FTA may make grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and 

other agreements for research, development, demonstration, and 

deployment projects, and evaluation of technology of national significance to public transportation. FTA provides transit agencies 

with research results to help them be better equipped to improve 

services and meet local transportation needs at the lowest reasonable cost. FTA helps transit agencies employ new service methods 

and technologies that improve their operations and capital efficiencies, as well as improve transit safety and emergency preparedness. 

The current authorization, MAP–21, continues these activities, 

while increasing the importance of FTA’s role in promoting the development and deployment of successful low or no emission buses, 

technology the agency played an important role in helping to develop and promote in recent years. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $55,300,000 for the transit research 

programs. The recommendation is $11,388,000 above the fiscal year 

2013 enacted level, and is 6,300,000 above the request. Of the total, 

$43,300,000 is for activities authorized under section 5312 of MAP– 

21. The Committee recommendation allocates the balance of funds 

for activities authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5313, 5314, and 5322(a), (b), 

and (e). 

FTA’s research efforts have a long, distinguished record of success, having helped pioneer and test compressed natural gas [CNG] 

buses in the 1970s and hybrid diesel bus prototypes in the 1980s, 

leading to the widespread adoption of these technologies today. 

More recently, FTA helped lead efforts to develop the first practical 

fuel cell buses in the world. However, the Committee has observed 

that the creativity and energy that characterized FTA’s research 

agenda in recent years has been absent during the past year. Perhaps this is understandable as the agency focused its attention on 

preparing to assume significant new responsibilities for transit 

safety. However, the Committee expects the FTA to resume and expand its leadership role in transit research, particularly as it relates to fostering innovation. To that end, the FTA must quickly 
81 

place a permanent leader in charge of the research programs, 

someone who can work with the agency’s partners and industry to 

develop and implement an agenda that takes full advantage of new 

and emerging technologies, some of which FTA had a role in developing. The Committee expects this position to be filled before the 

end of fiscal year 2013. 

There is a compelling case that the need for Federal support to 

help develop, test, and promote new transit-focused technologies remains as great as ever. These efforts can potentially help transit 

agencies reduce costs, and communities in their efforts to improve 

air quality. They also support U.S. economic competitiveness. To 

support these goals, the Committee directs the Office of the Inspector General to provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by February 3, 2014, recommending next 

steps the FTA could take to promote the development and deployment of cost-effective low- and zero-emission buses. The report 

should also identify other promising technologies that could benefit 

the industry by significantly reducing costs, curbing emissions, or 

improving safety. 

Improving Rural Transit Access.—The Committee recognizes the 

importance of ensuring safe, private transportation is made available for seniors, especially in small and rural communities where 

distance and low population density make traditional mass transportation difficult. The efficiencies of information management can 

bring together underutilized private transportation capacity by 

combining ride share, car share, volunteer transport, and private 

community transport. The Committee encourages FTA to consider 

the use of suites of software programs that leverage many kinds of 

unused private transportation capacity to promote transportation 

for seniors in small and rural communities. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $1,951,090,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 1,981,472,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,942,938,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under the Capital Investment Grants program, FTA provides 

grants to fund the building of new fixed guideway systems or extensions and improvements to existing fixed guideway systems. Eligible services include light rail, rapid rail (heavy rail), commuter 

rail, and bus rapid transit. The program has long included funding 

for two categories of eligible projects authorized under section 5309 

of title 49 of the United States Code: New Starts and Small Starts. 

New Starts are projects with a Federal share of at least 

$75,000,000 and a total capital cost of $250,000,000 or more. By 

comparison, Small Starts are projects with a Federal match and 

total capital cost below these thresholds. The most recent reauthorization, MAP–21, added a third category of eligible projects: Core 

Capacity. The latter are defined as projects that will increase capacity in an existing fixed guideway corridor by at least 10 percent. 
82 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a level of $1,942,938,000 for capital 

investment grants. This level fully funds the Department’s request 

of $1,981,472,000 due to the availability of $38,534,000 in additional prior year balances. The Committee directs these additional 

balances be used to help fully fund the projects included in the Department’s budget justification. 

For more than a decade, there has been renewed interest in 

many parts of the country in rail transit, especially in areas seeking to find solutions to road congestion, support economic development, manage population growth, and reduce air pollution. The 

Committee supports these investments, which it believes are essential to maintaining the Nation’s economic competitiveness. 

Appropriations for Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGA].—The 

Committee reiterates direction initially agreed to in the fiscal year 

2002 conference report that FTA should not sign any FFGAs that 

have a maximum Federal share higher than 60 percent. 

The Committee notes the request did not include funding for two 

projects it now expects to sign FFGAs in fiscal year 2014. The Committee believes the request should include sufficient funding for all 

projects the Department expects to commit to in the coming fiscal 

year so that they are not delayed. For an agency so adept at planning, this is a surprising omission, and the Committee directs FTA 

to avoid a repeat of this practice in its fiscal year 2015 budget request. 

COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING

The Columbia River Crossing is a project to replace the aging 

Interstate 5 between Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington, with a new bridge, better interchanges, and improved transit connections. The States of Washington and Oregon, along with 

Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, have worked closely with the Coast Guard and other agencies for more than a decade to gather extensive public comment 

and to balance the needs of businesses and residents. 

The existing bridges accommodate river traffic with a lift span, 

requiring traffic on I–5—the primary north/south highway connecting California to Canada—to come to a complete stop for at 

least 20 minutes and continue at a crawl for hours every time a 

ship wants to pass. This accommodation comes at the expense of 

local and national businesses, contributing to the slowing of both 

commercial and personal vehicle traffic for an unacceptable total of 

6 hours each day. 

The Committee commends the sponsors of the project for modifying the proposed height of the new structure from 95 feet to 116 

feet, dramatically reducing the number of companies impacted from 

57 to three. The project’s sponsors recently signed agreements with 

two of the remaining firms to mitigate the impacts to their operations that would be caused by the new I–5 bridge. Discussions 

with the third impacted metal company remain ongoing. 

The Columbia River Crossing project will have a significant positive effect on the economy in both States, adding an estimated 

$231,000,000 in economic activity, increasing jobs by 4,200, saving 
83 

$435,000,000 in costs associated with reduced travel time, and increasing the property values of adjacent homes and businesses. 

The recommendation reflected in the bill fully funds the request 

for this critical project. The Committee directs the Department to 

continue to support local efforts to complete the FFGA during fiscal 

year 2014 so that the citizens and businesses of the region can 

enjoy the benefits of eased traffic congestion, increased safety, and 

faster commerce for both vehicle and river traffic. 

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... $10,900,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 25,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2 Includes emergency funding of $10,900,000,000 in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 

2013 (division A of Public Law 113–2). 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program is a new 

program established in MAP–21 to help States and public transit 

systems cover the costs of protecting, repairing, and replacing 

equipment and facilities that may suffer or have suffered serious 

damage as a result of an emergency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 for the 

emergency relief program, $10,000,000 below the request. This 

level is $10,885,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 level. However, the $10,900,000,000 in fiscal year 2013 emergency funding 

was provided to aid recovery from Hurricane Sandy and other disasters. The amount recommended by the Committee represents the 

first time emergency funding is provided through the regular annual appropriations process. These funds will make it possible for 

FTA to respond immediately in the event of a disaster in fiscal year 

2014. 

GRANTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT

AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $149,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 150,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 150,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides assistance to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA]. The Federal Rail Safety 

Improvements Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–432, title VI, section 

601) authorized DOT to make up to $150,000,000 available to 

WMATA annually for capital and preventive maintenance for a 10- 

year period. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for grants 

to WMATA for capital and preventive maintenance expenses, in-
84 

cluding pressing safety-related investments. These grants are in 

addition to the funding local jurisdictions have committed to providing to WMATA. The Committee remains committed to supporting the refurbishment and modernization of WMATA’s infrastructure, and is encouraged by the initial investment to replace 

many of the older, 1000-series rail cars with domestically built 

7000-series cars, with delivery starting in 2015. The Committee 

also notes increased efforts to make the system safer, including: 

fixing the track signal system and communications equipment, installing guarded turnouts, buying equipment for wayside worker 

protection, and installing rollback protection on cars not already 

outfitted with this feature. 

The bill requires the FTA to provide these grants to WMATA 

only after receiving and reviewing a request for each specific 

project to be funded under this heading. The bill also requires the 

FTA to determine that WMATA has placed the highest priority on 

funding projects that will improve the safety of its public transit 

system before approving these grants. The Committee expects FTA 

to make this determination by taking into account the extent to 

which WMATA plans to use the funding provided under this heading in order to implement the safety recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Section 160 exempts authority previously made available for programs of the FTA under section 5338 of title 49, United States 

Code, from the obligation limitations in this act. 

Section 161 requires that funds appropriated or limited by this 

act for specific projects not obligated by September 30, 2018, and 

other recoveries, be directed to projects eligible to use the funds for 

the purposes for which they were originally provided. 

Section 162 allows funds appropriated before October 1, 2013 

that remain available for expenditure to be transferred to the most 

recent appropriation heading. 

Section 163 provides an exemption from the charter bus regulations for portions of the State of Washington. 

Section 164 permits the Secretary to consider significant private 

contributions when calculating the non-Federal share of capital 

costs for New Starts projects. 

Section 165 allows FTA to use unobligated and recovered fiscal 

year 2010 through 2012 alternatives analysis funding to carry out 

eligible fixed guideway projects. 

Section 166 makes $93,269,369 in prior year bus and bus facilities funds available for bus rapid transit projects proposed in the 

Capital Investment Grants program. 

Section 167 rescinds $96,156,190 in unobligated balances from 

various transit programs. 

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC] 

is a wholly owned Government corporation established by the Saint 

Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 981). SLSDC is 
85 

a vital transportation corridor for the international movement of 

bulk commodities such as steel, iron, grain, and coal, serving the 

North American region that makes up one-quarter of the United 

States population and nearly one-half of the Canadian population. 

The SLSDC is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of the United States portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $32,194,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 32,855,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 33,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] was established by 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99– 

662). Since 1987, the HMTF has supported the operations and 

maintenance of commercial harbor projects maintained by the Federal Government. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund and revenues from non-Federal sources finance the operation and maintenance of the Seaway, for which SLSDC is responsible. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $33,000,000 for the operations, 

maintenance, and asset renewal of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. 

This amount is $145,000 more than the budget request and 

$806,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The recommended level includes $16,000,000 to continue the agency’s 

Asset Renewal Program [ARP]. 

The Seaway is entering its 55th year of operation, which means 

that its infrastructure components are reaching the end of their design life. The ARP is a significant 10-year, multi-project strategy to 

address the long-term asset renewal needs of the U.S. portions of 

the Saint Lawrence Seaway, with attention to the two locks operated and maintained by the United States (Snell and Eisenhower), 

the U.S. segment of the Seaway International Bridge, maintenance 

dredging, operational systems, facilities, and equipment. 

SLSDC has made significant progress in executing the projects 

identified in the ARP under limited construction capacity since receiving initial appropriations in fiscal year 2009. The Committee 

directs SLSDC to continue to submit an annual report to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, not later than April 30 

of each year, summarizing the activities of the ARP during the immediate preceding fiscal year. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Administration [MARAD] is responsible for programs authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended 
86 

(46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). MARAD is also responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support of the 

Nation’s security and economic needs. MARAD prioritizes the Department of Defense’s [DOD] use of ports and intermodal facilities 

during DOD mobilizations to guarantee the smooth flow of military 

cargo through commercial ports. MARAD manages the Maritime 

Security Program, the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement 

Program, and the Ready Reserve Force, which assure DOD access 

to commercial and strategic sealift and associated intermodal capacity. MARAD also continues to address the disposal of obsolete 

ships in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that are deemed a potential environmental risk. Further, MARAD administers education 

and training programs through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six State maritime schools that assist in providing skilled 

merchant marine officers who are capable of serving defense and 

commercial transportation needs. The Committee continues to fund 

MARAD in its support of the United States as a maritime Nation. 

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $173,944,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 208,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 186,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Security Program [MSP] provides resources to 

maintain a U.S.-flag merchant fleet crewed by U.S. citizens to 

serve both the commercial and national security needs of the 

United States. The program provides direct payments to U.S.-flag 

ship operators engaged in U.S. foreign trade. Participating operators are required to keep the vessels in active commercial service 

and provide intermodal sealift support to DOD in times of war or 

national emergency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $186,000,000 for 

the MSP. This amount is $22,000,000 less than the budget request 

and $12,056,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The 

recommended appropriation provides sufficient funds to satisfy the 

fully authorized payment level for fiscal year 2014. 

The MSP is a successful and critical partnership with the Department of Defense and the U.S.-flag commercial maritime industry that supports military operations overseas. The MSP provides 

a sealift fleet capacity that would cost the Government 

$13,000,000,000 in capital to reproduce. Furthermore, according to 

the United States Transportation Command, it would cost the Government an additional $52,000,000,000 to replicate the global intermodal system that is made available to the Department of Defense 

by MSP participants who are continuously developing, maintaining, 

and upgrading their logistical support systems. The Committee 

strongly encourages the Department of Transportation to continue 

to support this proven and cost effective program in its fiscal year 

2015 budget request. 
87 

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $155,945,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 152,168,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 153,803,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Operations and Training appropriation primarily funds the 

salaries and expenses for MARAD headquarters and regional staff 

in the administration and direction for all MARAD programs. The 

account includes funding for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, 

six State maritime schools, port and intermodal development, cargo 

preference, international trade relations, deep-water port licensing 

and administrative support costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $153,803,000 for 

Operations and Training at MARAD for fiscal year 2014. This 

amount is $2,142,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level 

and $1,635,000 more than the budget request. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

Fiscal year 2014 

Senate 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy ........................................................................................................................... $81,500,000 

Academy Operations .................................................................................................................................... 63,500,000 

Salaries and Benefits ........................................................................................................................ 34,000,000 

Operating Expenses ............................................................................................................................ 29,500,000 

Capital Asset Management ......................................................................................................................... 18,000,000 

Capital Improvements ........................................................................................................................ 14,000,000 

Facilities Maintenance, Repairs, and Equipment .............................................................................. 4,000,000 

State Maritime Academies ................................................................................................................................... 17,100,000 

MARAD Operations ............................................................................................................................................... 55,203,000 

Environment and Compliance ..................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 

Port Infrastructure Development ................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Total, Operations and Training .............................................................................................................. 153,803,000 

National Sealift Strategy.—The Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Transportation rely on the U.S. Merchant Marine to provide privately owned, commercial U.S.-flag ships and 

intermodal logistics capability to meet military and emergency response requirements and to provide U.S. mariners for the crewing 

of government reserve ships. The Committee directs the Administrator to submit a report to the Appropriations Committee within 

90 days of the date of enactment of this act detailing the current 

and future impacts of reductions in government impelled cargo on 

the U.S. Merchant Marine as a result of changes to cargo preference requirements included in MAP–21, the historical reductions 

in the Public Law 480 Food for Peace program, and the winding 

down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Committee also directs the Administrator and the Secretary of Transportation to 

work closely with the Department of Defense to further develop a 

national sealift strategy that ensures the long-term viability of the 

U.S. Merchant Marine. 
88 

United States Merchant Marine Academy.—The United States 

Merchant Marine Academy [USMMA] provides educational programs for men and women to become shipboard officers and leaders 

in the maritime industry. The Committee is committed to ensuring 

the Academy’s midshipmen receive the highest quality education to 

prepare them for a commission with the U.S. Naval Reserve or 

other uniformed service upon graduation. The Committee remains 

troubled that for many years, officials at the Academy engaged in 

questionable financial management practices that compromised the 

integrity of the institution. Senior leadership at MARAD and the 

Department of Transportation did not exercise sufficient oversight 

of Academy operations and failed to effectively manage the physical 

infrastructure projects in the Academy’s Capital Improvement Program [CIP]. The culmination of these failures caused significant 

turmoil in all aspects of the Academy’s operations and resulted in 

a crisis of leadership. Thankfully, the current Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Department of Transportation have taken a 

keen interest in reforming and restoring the Academy to a topnotch academic institution. However, this effort remains a work in 

progress. 

The Committee once again directs the Administrator to provide 

an annual report by March 31, 2014, on the current status of the 

CIP. The report should include a list of all projects that have received funding and all proposed projects that the Academy intends 

to initiate within the next 5 years; cost overruns and cost savings 

for each active project; specific target dates for project completion; 

delays and the cause of delays; schedule changes; up-to-date cost 

projections for each project; and any other deviations from the previous year’s CIP. 

The Committee recognizes the reforms needed to restore the 

Academy will take time to fully implement. Therefore, the Committee has again included language requiring that all funding for 

the Academy be allocated directly to the Secretary, with 50 percent 

of the funding withheld until MARAD submits a plan detailing how 

the funding will be spent. The Committee believes this process will 

ensure the Secretary’s continued engagement, as well as sustain 

the newly developed system of financial control and accountability. 

Environment and Compliance.—The Committee commends 

MARAD’s initiative to support the domestic maritime industry’s efforts to comply with emerging international and domestic environmental regulatory requirements. Funds provided in fiscal year 2014 

should be used to continue independent testing of ballast water 

technologies to meet domestic and international regulatory requirements, as well as to assist in the testing and certification or 

verification of air emissions reduction technology in conjunction 

with the Environmental Protection Agency. 

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $5,489,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 2 ......................................................................... 2,000,000 

Committee Recommendation ................................................................ 4,800,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2The budget proposed shifting $2,800,000 for the NS Savannah to the Operations and Training account. 
89 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Ship Disposal account provides resources to dispose of obsolete merchant-type vessels of 150,000 gross tons or more in the National Defense Reserve Fleet [NDRF]. Currently there is a backlog 

of 35 ships awaiting disposal. Many of these vessels are 50 or more 

years old and have the potential to pose a significant environmental threat due to the presence of hazardous substances, such as 

asbestos and solid and liquid polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,800,000 for 

MARAD’s Ship Disposal program. This level of funding is $689,000 

less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and $2,800,000 more 

than the budget request. This level of funding, in addition to the 

anticipated carryover from previous appropriations, is sufficient to 

meet the terms and conditions of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet settlement and continued activities related to NS Savannah. The 

Committee directs MARAD to take all actions practicable and reasonable to align the scope of vessels listed for inspection in the notice of vessel visitation to the subsequent notice of vessels available 

for sale. Further, MARAD shall make best value determinations 

and award ship recycling contracts no later than 90 days from the 

close of the ship specific solicitation period for sales offers and/or 

price revisions for vessel dismantlement/recycling services. 

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL SHIPYARDS

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $9,960,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... ........................... 

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

1Does not include the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistance to Small Shipyards program provides assistance 

in the form of grants, loans, and loan guarantees to small shipyards for capital improvements and training programs, as authorized by section 3506 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2006, 46 U.S.C. 54101. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000 for 

assistance to small shipyards. This level of funding is $40,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The President did not request funding for this program in fiscal year 2014. 

The Committee began funding this program in fiscal year 2008 

to assist small shipyards in maritime dependent communities to 

improve the efficiency of their operations by providing funding for 

equipment and other facility upgrades, as well as workforce training and apprenticeship programs. A total of 113 qualified applicants submitted requests totaling $96,000,000 in fiscal year 2013, 

far exceeding available resources. The funding recommended by the 

Committee will help improve the competitiveness of our Nation’s 

shipyard industry. 
90 

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM [TITLE XI]

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $3,733,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 2,655,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 38,500,000 

1Does not include the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Guaranteed Loan program was established pursuant to title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended. 

The program provides for a full faith and credit guarantee by the 

U.S. Government of debt obligations issued by: (1) U.S. or foreign 

ship-owners for the purposes of financing or refinancing either 

U.S.-flag vessels or eligible export vessels constructed, reconstructed, or reconditioned in U.S. shipyards; and (2) U.S. shipyards, 

for the purpose of financing advanced shipbuilding technology of 

privately owned general shipyard facilities located in the United 

States. Under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, appropriations to cover the estimated costs of a project must be obtained 

prior to the issuance of any approvals for title XI financing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides an appropriation of $38,500,000 for the 

loan guarantee program, of which $3,500,000 shall be used for administrative expenses. This level of funding is $35,845,000 more 

than the President’s budget request and $34,767,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The Committee recognizes the importance that the title XI program provides for the advancement of 

shipbuilding, aiding the U.S.-flag fleet, and sustainment of jobs for 

this critical sector of our national defense. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 170 authorizes the Maritime Administration to furnish 

utilities and to service and make repairs to any lease, contract, or 

occupancy involving Government property under the control of 

MARAD. Rental payments received pursuant to this provision shall 

be credited to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration 

[PHMSA] was established in the Department of Transportation on 

November 30, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research 

and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108–246). 

PHMSA is responsible for the Department’s pipeline safety program as well as oversight of hazardous materials transportation 

safety operations. The administration is dedicated to safety, including the elimination of transportation-related deaths and injuries 

associated with hazardous materials and pipeline transportation, 

and to promoting transportation solutions that enhance communities and protect the environment. 
91 

OPERATIONAL EXPENSES

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $21,317,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 21,654,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 21,654,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds program support costs for PHMSA, including 

policy development, civil rights, management, administration, and 

agency-wide expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $21,654,000 for this account, of 

which $639,000 is to be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund, and 

of which $1,500,000 may be transferred to the Office of Pipeline 

Safety for Information Grants to Communities. This level of funding is equal to the budget request and $337,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $42,253,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 2 ......................................................................... 45,801,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 45,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds. 

2The budget request included a new user fee as offsetting collections in the amount of $12,000,000, bringing the total request to $51,801,000. CBO’s re-estimate of the fee was $6 million, bringing the request level down to $45,801,000. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

PHMSA oversees the safety of more than 800,000 daily shipments of hazardous materials in the United States, using risk management principles and security threat assessments to fully assess 

and reduce the risks inherent in hazardous materials transportation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $45,000,000 for 

hazardous materials safety, of which $1,716,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2015. The amount provided is $801,000 

less than the budget request and $2,747,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2013 enacted level. The increase in funding is provided to accommodate base program adjustments and information technology 

modernization. 

In the fiscal year 2013 and 2014 budget proposals, PHMSA proposed the creation of a user fee to reduce the burden on the Federal taxpayer for financing special permit and approvals activities. 

The Committee finds that the program provides benefits to identifiable users above and beyond what is provided normally to the public, and the establishment of a user fee is fully justified under GAO 

guidelines and authorities granted by 31 U.S.C. 9701. However, the 

Committee believes that such a fee should be established through 
92 

the regulatory process or should be addressed through the authorization process. 

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

(PIPELINE SAFETY DESIGN REVIEW FUND)

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $109,033,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 153,573,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 151,427,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] is designed to promote the 

safe, reliable, and sound transportation of natural gas and hazardous liquids through the Nation’s 2.6 million miles of privately 

owned and operated pipelines. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Pipeline Safety Office has the important responsibility of ensuring the safety and integrity of the pipelines that run through 

every community in our Nation. Efforts by Congress and the OPS 

to invest in promising safety technologies, increase civil penalties, 

and educate communities about the potential risks of pipelines 

have resulted in a reduction in serious pipeline incidents. It is essential that the agency continue to make strides in protecting communities from pipeline failures and incidents. To that end, the 

Committee recommends an appropriation of $151,427,000 for the 

Office of Pipeline Safety. The amount is $42,394,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2013 enacted level and $2,146,000 less than the budget 

request. Of the funding provided, $18,573,000 shall be derived from 

the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, $131,493,000 shall be derived 

from the Pipeline Safety Fund, and $2,000,000 shall be derived 

from the Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund. 

This level of funding provides additional resources to hire 10 

pipelines safety inspectors as authorized by the Pipeline Safety, 

Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011, Public Law 

112–90). The recommendation includes increases of $18,839,000 for 

the State Pipeline Safety Grant Program and $5,448,000 for research and development activities, consistent with the budget request. Of the funds recommended for research and development, a 

minimum of $1,500,000 shall be used to continue efforts to develop 

inline inspection devices, known as smart pigs, that are capable of 

inspecting older pipelines that currently cannot be pigged. Further, 

in performing the study on the transportation of diluted bitumen 

required under section 16 of Public Law 112–90, the Administrator 

shall determine whether the spill properties differ sufficiently from 

those of other liquid petroleum products to warrant modifications 

of spill response plans, spill preparedness, or clean up regulations. 

Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure.—Section 23 of Public 

Law 112–90 requires each pipeline owner or operator to submit to 

the Secretary a list of pipeline segments whose records are insuffi-
93 

cient to confirm the established maximum allowable operating 

pressure. The Secretary must then issue regulations for conducting 

tests to confirm the material strength of untested natural gas 

transmission pipelines, as well as timeframes for the completion of 

such testing. The Committee encourages the Secretary to meet the 

statutory deadlines required to protect the public from accidents 

that can result from operating pipelines at unsafe pressures. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $28,130,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 28,318,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,318,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 

1990 [HMTUSA] requires PHMSA to (1) develop and implement a 

reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 

public sector emergency response training and planning, and provide technical assistance to States, political subdivisions and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and periodically update a mandatory 

training curriculum for emergency responders. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $28,318,000 and an equal obligation 

limitation for the emergency preparedness grant program. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $79,465,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 85,605,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 86,605,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective organization, with a mission to: 

—conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the 

programs and operations of the Department; 

—provide leadership and recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations; 

—prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and 

—keep the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding 

problems and deficiencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $86,605,000 for activities of the Office of the Inspector General, which is $1,000,000 
94 

more than the President’s budget request and $7,140,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

OIG criminal investigations and program audits are invaluable 

contributions to the Department of Transportation. Furthermore, 

the Committee relies on the Inspector General and his staff to provide objective analysis of the Department’s programs. In recent 

years, the office has had to take aggressive measures to live within 

its budgetary resources, and the Committee recognizes that these 

constraints are beginning to restrict the ability of the OIG to respond to developments at the Department. For example, to complete work mandated by Congress, the OIG has not initiated audits 

where its staff sees an opportunity to improve the Department’s 

performance. For this reason, the Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 in addition to the OIG’s budget request. These 

funds are intended to ensure that the OIG has adequate resources 

to maintain its workforce and fulfill all of its responsibilities. 

Asset Forfeiture.—When the Federal Government uses asset forfeiture authority, it punishes and deters criminal activity by depriving criminals of property used or acquired through illegal activities. Certain law enforcement agencies participate in the Treasury Department’s Treasury Forfeiture Fund or the Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture Fund. These agencies can use forfeited 

funds to pay expenses related to the investigation of illegal activities, such as contracting with forensic accountants who can reconstruct financial transactions and identify forfeitable assets in complex grant and procurement fraud cases. In order to strengthen the 

law enforcement activities of the OIG, the Committee includes a 

provision that would allow the office to participate in asset forfeiture programs. 

Audit Reports.—The Committee requests the Inspector General 

to continue to forward copies of all audit reports to the Committee 

immediately after they are issued, and to continue to make the 

Committee aware immediately of any review that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major acquisition project or grant, 

or which recommends significant budgetary savings. The OIG is 

also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 15 

days any final audit or investigative report which was requested by 

the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Sole-Source Contracts.—The Committee has included a provision 

in section 407 that requires all departments and agencies in this 

act to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on all sole-source contracts, including the contractor, the 

amount of the contract, and the rationale for a sole-source procurement as opposed to a market-based procurement. The Committee 

directs the IG to assess any conflicts of interest with regard to 

these contracts and DOT. 

Unfair Business Practices.—The bill maintains language which 

authorizes the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or 

deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers and ticket agents. 
95 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation 

Crediting 

offsetting 

collections 

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................................................ $29,254,000 $1,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 2 ..................................................................................................... 30,775,000 1,250,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 32,250,000 1,250,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2 STB submitted a budget request independently proposing a total appropriation of $34,284,000. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Surface Transportation Board [STB] was created on January 

1, 1996, by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act 

of 1995 [ICCTA] (Public Law 104–88). The Board is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT, and is responsible for the regulation 

of the rail and pipeline industries and certain nonlicensing regulation of motor carriers and water carriers. 

STB’s rail oversight activities include rate reasonableness, car 

service and interchange, mergers, line acquisitions, line constructions, and abandonments. STB’s jurisdiction also includes certain 

oversight of the intercity bus industry, pipeline carriers, intercity 

passenger train service, rate regulation involving noncontiguous 

domestic water transportation, household goods carriers, and collectively determined motor carrier rates. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $32,250,000. 

This funding level is $1,475,000 more than the President’s request 

and $2,996,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. Included in the recommendation is $1,250,000 in fees, which will offset the appropriated funding. 

The Committee recommendation includes additional funding to 

hire up to four additional staff to manage the increasing workload 

for passenger rail matters and for oversight responsibilities of railroad financial, employment, and operational data that the STB is 

required to analyze and use to ensure compliance with the agency’s 

core statute. Funds are also provided to make long overdue improvements to the agency’s information technology systems. The request for additional funding for travel expenses is denied. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Section 180 allows funds for maintenance and operation of aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, 

as authorized by law. 

Section 181 limits appropriations for services authorized by 5 

U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an Executive Level IV. 

Section 182 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and expenses 

of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation. 

Section 183 prohibits recipients of funds made available in the 

act from releasing personal information, including Social Security 
96 

numbers, medical and disability information, and photographs, 

from a driver’s license or motor vehicle record without the express 

consent of the person to whom such information pertains; and prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from withholding funds provided in this act from any grantee in noncompliance with this provision. 

Section 184 allows funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration from States, counties, municipalities, other 

public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for 

training may be credited to each agency’s respective accounts. 

Section 185 prohibits the use of funds in this act to make a grant 

or announce the intention to make a grant unless the Secretary of 

Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations at least 3 full business days before making the grant 

or the announcement. 

Section 186 allows rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor 

fees, and other funds received by the Department of Transportation 

from travel management center, charge card programs, subleasing 

of building space and miscellaneous sources to be credited to appropriations of the Department of Transportation. 

Section 187 requires amounts from improper payments to a 

third-party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the Department of Transportation to be available to cover expenses incurred 

in recovery of such payments. 

Section 188 establishes requirements for reprogramming actions 

by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 189 prohibits the Surface Transportation Board from 

charging filing fees for rate or practice complaints that are greater 

than the fees authorized for district court civil suits. 

Section 190 prohibits funds appropriated in this act to the modal 

administrations from being obligated for the Office of the Secretary 

for costs related to assessments or reimbursable agreements unless 

the obligations are for services that provide a direct benefit to the 

applicable modal administration. 

Section 191 authorizes the Secretary to carry out a program that 

establishes uniform standards for developing and supporting agency transit pass and transit benefits authorized under section 7905 

of title 5, United States Code. 
(97) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was 

established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public 

Law 89–174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the 

principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned with 

the Nation’s housing needs, fair housing opportunities, and improving and developing the Nation’s communities. 

In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and interests of 

the Nation’s communities and of the people who live and work in 

them, HUD administers mortgage and loan insurance programs 

that help families become homeowners and facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and homeownership subsidy programs 

for low-income families who otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid 

neighborhood rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of our urban centers from blight and decay. 

HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the marketplace, and fosters programs and research that stimulate and 

guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but better 

communities and living environments. 

The Committee reiterates that the Department must limit the reprogramming of funds between the programs, projects, and activities within each account without prior approval of the Committees 

on Appropriations. Unless otherwise identified in the bill or report, 

the most detailed allocation of funds presented in the budget justifications is approved, with any deviation from such approved allocation subject to the normal reprogramming requirements. Except 

as specifically provided otherwise, it is the intent of the Committee 

that all carryover funds in the various accounts, including recaptures and de-obligations, are subject to the normal reprogramming 

requirements outlined above. No change may be made to any program, project, or activity if it is construed to be new policy or a 

change in policy, without prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations. The Committee also directs HUD to include a separate delineation of any reprogramming of funds requiring approval 

be included in the operating plan required by section 405 of this 

act. Finally, the Committee expects to be notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs or activities prior to the implementation of such reorganizations, as well as be notified, on a monthly 

basis, of all ongoing litigation, including any negotiations or discussions, planned or ongoing, regarding a consent decree between the 

Department and any other entity, including the estimated costs of 

such decrees. 
98 

ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS, AND MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $536,713,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 2 ......................................................................... 519,853,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 521,375,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2 Requested under two new accounts $14,540,000 for ‘‘Executive Offices’’ and $505,313,000 

under ‘‘Administrative Support Offices’’. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administration, Operations, and Management [AOM] account is the backbone of HUD’s operations, and consists of several 

offices that are supposed to work seamlessly to provide the leadership and support services to ensure the Department performs its 

core mission and is compliant with all legal, operational, and financial guidelines. The AOM account funds the salaries and expenses 

of the Immediate Office of the Secretary, the Immediate Office of 

the Deputy Secretary, the Office of Adjudicatory Services, the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, the Office of 

Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, the Office of General Counsel, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of 

Public Affairs, the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, the Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity, the Office of 

Field Policy and Management, the Office of Strategic Planning and 

Management, the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, the 

Office of Administration, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, and the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $521,375,000 for 

this account, which is $15,338,422 less than the fiscal year 2013 

enacted level. The President’s budget proposed to fund these offices 

in two separate accounts totaling $519,853,000, $1,522,000 less 

than the amount recommended. 

The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget proposed to create two 

new personnel accounts for the Department, one for executive support offices and another for administrative support offices, and to 

eliminate budget line items for each office. The Committee created 

the existing funding structure to increase the transparency of 

HUD’s personnel funding. Over the years, the Committee has 

modified the structure to make it more effective. For example, in 

fiscal year 2012, the Committee consolidated funding provided separately for personnel and non-personnel funding into one allocation 

for each office. Moreover, the Committee has worked with HUD to 

respond to reprogramming requests necessary to address funding 

challenges that have arisen during the fiscal year. Therefore, the 

Committee recommendation rejects this latest proposal to modify 

the structure. The Committee expects HUD to manage its resources as provided and will continue to work with it to address 

challenges that come up during the year. 

Funds are made available as follows: 

Amount 

Immediate Office of the Secretary ....................................................................................................................... $3,810,000 
99 

Amount 

Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary .......................................................................................................... 1,290,000 

Office of Adjudicatory Services ............................................................................................................................ 1,760,000 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ................................................................................... 745,000 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ................................................................................................................... 48,300,000 

Office of the General Counsel ............................................................................................................................. 94,510,000 

Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations .................................................................................. 2,410,000 

Office of Public Affairs ........................................................................................................................................ 3,530,000 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer ......................................................................................................... 51,810,000 

Office of Administration ....................................................................................................................................... 193,600,000 

Office of Field Policy and Management .............................................................................................................. 52,700,000 

Office of the Chief Procurement Officer .............................................................................................................. 17,360,000 

Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity ..................................................................................... 3,150,000 

Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships .................................................................................... 1,400,000 

Office of Strategic Planning and Management ................................................................................................... 5,000,000 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................................................................................... 40,000,000 

Office of the Chief Information Officer.—The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $2,602,000 above the request 

for the OCIO. The President’s budget proposed to reduce resources 

available to OCIO for project management and budgeting staff. 

Based on GAO’s reviews of HUD’s implementation of its IT modernization projects, these are two areas where OCIO needs to increase its capacity. Therefore, the recommended funding increase is 

directed to address those areas of weakness. To accommodate this 

increase, the recommendation has decreased HUD’s Information 

Technology Fund, so that HUD can strengthen its internal capacity 

instead of relying on outside contractors. 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer.—The recommendation for 

the OCFO includes sufficient funding to meet HUD’s request to 

staff the Office of Budget at 49 FTE in 2014. The Committee directs HUD to meet this staffing level before hiring in other OCFO 

functional areas, except in order to address mission critical positions that become vacant or to fill the Chief Financial Officer position. 

The Committee commends the work of the Appropriations Law 

Division in the OCFO and encourages the Department to maximize 

its use of this valuable resource. The Committee reminds the Department of its intent that all appropriations law issues be referred 

to and addressed by such division. 

Travel.—The Committee has recommended targeted increases in 

travel to enhance oversight of grantees. In order to ensure that this 

funding is dedicated to mission compliance and oversight, the Committee directs HUD to track the amount of travel dedicated to oversight and report such information in its fiscal year 2015 congressional justification, as well as upon Committee request. 

Procurement.—The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer is responsible for obtaining all contracted goods and services for the Department. As such, this office is involved in everything from research projects to information technology investments. In recent 

years, CPO has undergone changes aimed at improving its performance. To monitor the impact of these efforts, the Committee directs HUD to continue to provide semi-annual updates to the Committees on Appropriations on how these changes have impacted its 

ability to execute contracts. This should include quantifiable measures of progress, such as the time it takes to execute a contract or 
100 

reduced overtime, in comparison to previous fiscal years and government standards. 

PROGRAM OFFICES SALARIES AND EXPENSES

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $119,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 220,299,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 212,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 46 field offices in the Office of Public 

and Indian Housing [PIH]. PIH is charged with ensuring the availability of safe, decent, and affordable housing, creating opportunities for residents’ self-sufficiency and economic independence, and 

assuring the fiscal integrity of all public housing agencies. The Office ensures that safe, decent and affordable housing is available to 

Native American families, creates economic opportunities for tribes 

and Indian housing residents, assists tribes in the formulation of 

plans and strategies for community development, and assures fiscal 

integrity in the operation of its programs. The Office also administers programs authorized in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 [NAHASDA], which provides housing assistance to Native Americans and Native Hawaiians. PIH also manages the Housing Choice Voucher program, in 

which tenant-based vouchers increase affordable housing choices 

for low-income families. Tenant-based vouchers enable families to 

lease safe, decent, and affordable privately owned rental housing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $212,000,000 for 

this account, which is $8,299,000 less than the budget request and 

$12,400,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The Committee recommendation supports additional FTEs for the public 

housing operations monitoring, Native American and Native Hawaiian homeownership, and strategic planning and risk management functions, as requested. However, the recommendation only 

provides an increase of eight FTEs for Innovation and Program 

Demonstrations, reflecting the decrease in Choice Neighborhoods 

funding, and directs that additional FTEs instead be added to the 

Tenant-based Rental Assistance [TBRA] Operations and Monitoring function. 

PIH’s responsibilities include the oversight of public housing 

agencies [PHAs] across the country that manage public housing 

and participate in the section 8 TBRA program. These programs 

serve more than 3 million low-income individuals and families 

across the country. Section 8 also represents the largest single item 

in HUD’s budget. The oversight of these programs is therefore critical to protecting both residents and taxpayers. The Committee recommendation targets at least $5,000,000 to inspection efforts. This 

includes efforts to move to a consistent inspection standard across 

housing assistance programs, as well as oversight of section 8 
101 

units. The Committee directs HUD to submit a report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this act detailing what HUD has learned to date from the 

inspection pilot it is currently conducting and how the inspection 

funding provided here will be used to improve standards and ensure compliance with housing quality standards. This report should 

included detailed information on the amount of funding directed to 

each activity and timeframes for implementation and completion of 

work. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $99,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 109,740,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 107,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding for Community 

Planning and Development [CPD] staff in headquarters and in 43 

field offices. CPD’s mission is to support successful urban, suburban and rural communities by promoting integrated approaches to 

community and economic development. CPD programs also assist 

in the expansion of opportunities for low- and moderate-income individuals and families in moving towards home ownership. The Assistant Secretary for CPD administers formula and competitive 

grant programs, as well as guaranteed loan programs, that help 

communities plan and finance their growth and development. 

These programs also help communities increase their capacity to 

govern and provide shelter and services for homeless persons and 

other persons with special needs, including person with HIV/AIDS. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $107,000,000 for 

the staffing within this office, which is $2,740,000 less than the 

budget request and $7,200,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The additional FTEs will be used to conduct oversight 

of grantees. The recommendation also includes funding for the Office of Economic Resilience. The Committee is achieving this increase by shifting administrative dollars to program offices to focus 

on program oversight. 

HOUSING

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $390,717,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 383,375,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 390,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 52 field locations in the Office of Housing. The Office of Housing is responsible for implementing programs to assist projects for occupancy by very low- and moderateincome households, to provide capital grants to nonprofit sponsors 
102 

for the development of housing for the elderly and handicapped, 

and to conduct several regulatory functions. The Office also administers Federal Housing Administration [FHA] programs. FHA administers HUD’s mortgage and loan insurance programs, which facilitate the financing of new construction, rehabilitation or the purchase of existing dwelling units. The Office also provides services 

to maintain and preserve homeownership, especially for underserved populations. This assistance allows lenders to make lower 

cost financing available to more borrowers for home and home improvement loans, and apartment, hospital, and nursing home loans. 

FHA provides a vital link in addressing America’s homeownership 

and affordable housing needs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $390,000,000 for 

staffing in the Office of Housing, which is $6,625,000 more than 

the budget request and $717,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The Committee has also directed that at least 

$8,000,000 be dedicated to the Office of Risk and Regulatory Affairs. 

At the end of April, HUD announced a major reorganization of 

its Multifamily Housing operations. The changes are expected to 

reduce operating costs significantly, and affect 900 employees. The 

Committee applauds HUD’s efforts to look for ways to increase efficiencies and save taxpayer dollars. However, the Committee needs 

sufficient time to understand the impact of this restructuring and 

the effect it will have on HUD’s ability to process loans in a timely 

manner and conduct appropriate oversight. The Committee has not 

reduced the budget to reflect the proposed staffing reductions as it 

awaits additional information from the Department on the reorganization. However, the Committee will continue to evaluate the 

proposal and may make adjustments to the funding level going forward, if warranted. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $22,167,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 21,687,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 23,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 16 field locations in the Office of Policy Development and Research [PD&R]. PD&R supports the Department’s efforts to help create cohesive, economically healthy 

communities. PD&R is responsible for maintaining current information on housing needs, market conditions, and existing programs, as well as conducting research on priority housing and community development issues. The Office provides reliable and objective data and analysis to help inform policy decisions. 
103 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,000,000 for 

this account, which is $1,313,000 more than the budget request 

and $833,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

PD&R collects and distributes data on HUD programs, the people HUD serves, and housing needs across the country. The information it makes available and the analysis it provides to the Department is essential to moving HUD to outcomes based performance measures. The Committee also relies on the data and research 

provided by PD&R to inform its work. The recommended increase 

will ensure that PD&R can continue to play this important role. 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $72,455,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 76,504,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 75,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 42 field locations in the Office of Fair 

Housing and Equal Opportunity [FHEO]. FHEO is responsible for 

investigating, resolving, and prosecuting complaints of housing discrimination, as well as conducting education and outreach activities to increase awareness of the requirements of the Fair Housing 

Act. The Office also develops and interprets fair housing policy, 

processes complaints, performs compliance reviews, and provides 

oversight and technical assistance to local housing authorities and 

community development agencies regarding section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,000,000, 

which is $1,504,000 less than the budget request and $2,545,000 

more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $7,385,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 7,642,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,642,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support the 

Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control [OHHLHC] 

headquarters staff. OHHLHC administers and manages the leadbased paint and healthy homes activities of the Department, and 

is directly responsible for the administration of the Lead-Based 

Paint Hazard Reduction program. The Office also develops leadbased paint regulations, guidelines, and policies applicable to HUD 

programs, designs lead-based paint and healthy homes training 

programs, administers lead-hazard control and healthy homes 
104 

grant programs, and implements the lead and healthy homes research program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,642,000 for 

this account, which is equal to the budget request and $257,000 

more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION

Appropriations, 2013 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... $10,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Rental Assistance Demonstration [RAD] is testing a potentially promising model to preserve public housing. Participation in 

the program by public housing agencies is voluntary and involves 

the conversion of existing public housing units to an improved form 

of property-based rental assistance. This form of rental assistance 

would enable public housing agencies to leverage private sector resources in order to recapitalize this housing stock and maintain 

these units of affordable housing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for the 

Rental Assistance Demonstration, equal to the President’s budget 

request. No funding was provided for RAD in fiscal year 2013. In 

fiscal year 2012, the Committee began a demonstration to test the 

success of converting public housing and other assisted housing to 

section 8 vouchers or project-based section 8 contracts as a means 

of recapitalizing and preserving the long-term viability of affordable housing. 

To date, over 68 public housing authorities have received RAD 

awards covering more than 12,000 units of public housing. The 

Committee is pleased that small, medium and large size housing 

authorities have all received awards. As intended, these initial 

awardees are expected to leverage significant resources to finance 

their capital improvements, including low-income tax credits and 

private sector loans, multiplying the impact of the Federal investment. 

The recommended funding level will allow HUD to convert 3,000 

units of public housing in high-poverty neighborhoods that would 

be unable to address their capital needs without an increased subsidy. The Committee has included this funding because it is committed to preserving desperately needed affordable housing and believes RAD is a critical part of accomplishing that goal. The Committee has also increased the number of units that can be part of 

the demonstration. It will continue to monitor the pipeline of 

projects, determine if a higher level is warranted, and adjust the 

number if necessary to meet demand. 
105 

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 longterm affordability. 

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... $18,909,409,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 3 ......................................................................... 19,989,216,000 

Committee recommendation 3 ............................................................... 19,592,216,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2 Includes an advance appropriation of $3,992,000,000. 

3 Includes an advance appropriation of $4,000,000,000. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the section 8 tenant-based 

(voucher) program. Section 8 tenant-based housing assistance is 

one of the principle appropriations for Federal housing assistance, 

assisting approximately 2.2 million families. The program also 

funds incremental vouchers for tenants who live in properties 

where the owner has decided to leave the section 8 program. The 

program also provides for the replacement of units lost from the assisted housing inventory through its tenant protection vouchers. 

Under these programs, eligible low-income families pay 30 percent 

of their adjusted income for rent, and the Federal Government is 

responsible for the remainder of the rent, up to the fair market 

rent or some other payment standard. This account also provides 

funding for administrative fees for public housing authorities, 

mainstream vouchers, and Housing and Urban Development Veterans Supportive Housing [HUD–VASH] programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,592,216,000 for fiscal year 2014, including $4,000,000,000 as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1, 2014. This amount is 

$397,000,000 less than the budget request and $682,726,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

The Committee recommends $17,568,278,000 for the renewal 

costs of section 8 vouchers, which is $400,000,000 less than the 

budget request and $360,412,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 

enacted level. 

The section 8 rental assistance program is a critical tool that enables more than 2 million low-income individuals and families to 

access safe, stable and affordable housing in the private market. 

In recognition of the section 8 program’s central role in ensuring 

housing for vulnerable Americans, the Committee recommendation 
106 

includes sufficient resources to support existing section 8 programs 

to ensure that no current voucher holders are put at risk of losing 

their housing. It also supports the first-time renewal of incremental 

vouchers that were funded in prior years, including HUD–VASH 

vouchers. 

The Committee recommendation includes several reform proposals requested in the budget. These reforms, which include serving more working poor, modifying utility allowances, streamlining 

inspections, and encouraging public housing authorities [PHAs] to 

form consortia, will result in direct savings or create efficiencies 

that will improve PHA productivity. The Committee notes that a 

regulation will be needed to implement the changes to inspection 

protocols, and directs HUD to include requirements for PHAs to obtain and retain photographs of units inspected as part of this regulation. 

While the Committee has included these reforms to ensure better 

use of the resources provided in the bill, the Committee hopes that 

a broader section 8 reform bill will be enacted. A full reform bill 

is expected to modernize other aspects of the program and expand 

the Moving to Work [MTW] program, while increasing reporting by 

MTW agencies. 

In the absence of a reform bill, the Committee expects HUD to 

be working to update regulations that don’t require congressional 

action. In recent years, PHAs have faced serious funding constraints and it is imperative that HUD work to ensure scarce administrative dollars are directed toward requirements that will ensure housing safety standards, protect residents, and save taxpayer 

dollars. It is clear that some existing regulations are creating burdens for PHAs with little benefit to the oversight of the program. 

At the same time, HUD should be requiring different information 

that would provide better insight into its programs and improve its 

oversight. To that end, the Committee directs HUD to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 

180 days of enactment of this act on existing regulations that need 

to be updated. This report should include the intended purpose of 

the regulation and if it needs to be eliminated or replaced with a 

different requirement. The report also may include other regulatory 

requirements HUD would like to promulgate. Finally, the report 

should include timeframes for updating regulations. 

Finance and Governance.—PHAs are local entities managed by 

housing boards and commissioners that provide oversight at the 

local level. In examining the circumstances that result in public 

housing authorities becoming troubled, problems with finance and 

governance are often the root cause. The Committee notes that PIH 

launched the PHA Recovery and Sustainability [PHARS] model to 

focus resources and attention on improving troubled or near-troubled PHAs, and specifically governance and financial management. 

While the vast majority of housing authorities operate their programs effectively, the Committee believes that HUD should be providing this type of information and training to all PHAs, not just 

those that are troubled or near troubled. 

The Committee directs HUD to work with its OIG to determine 

the critical skills that PHA boards should have to effectively oversee PHA operations, as well as the actions HUD will take to ensure 
107 

that PHAs possess them. The Committee notes that in considering 

approaches to providing education and training to PHAs and their 

boards, HUD should work with industry to see if there are existing 

training programs that can support this effort. HUD must also be 

mindful of the cost associated with such requirements and consider 

providing information online or supporting costs of in-person training so that this is not a financial burden for PHAs. The Committee 

directs HUD to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 days of enactment of this act describing its findings and how it will meet this requirement. 

Set-Asides for Special Circumstances.—The Committee has pro- vided a set-aside of $50,000,000 to allow the Secretary to adjust allocations to PHAs under certain circumstances. Qualifying factors 

include: (1) a significant increase, as determined by the Secretary, 

in renewal costs of tenant-based rental assistance resulting from 

unforeseen circumstances and voucher utilization or the impact 

from portability under section 8(r) of the act; (2) vouchers that 

were not in use during the previous 12-month period in order to 

be available to meet a commitment pursuant to section 8(o)(13) of 

the act; (3) adjustments or costs associated with HUD–VASH 

vouchers; and (4) possible termination of families as a result of insufficient funding. A PHA should not receive an adjustment to its 

allocation from the funding provided under this section if the Secretary determines that such PHA, through negligence or intentional actions, would exceed its authorized level of vouchers. 

Pilot for Homeless Native Americans.—Since 2008, the Committee has been providing funding for the joint HUD–Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program [HUD–VASH] aimed at ending 

veteran homelessness. The success of this effort can be seen in the 

results of HUD’s most recent Point-in-Time count in 2012, which 

showed that homelessness among veterans has been reduced by 

over 17 percent since 2009. 

However, as a result of program rules, these vouchers are not 

available to serve Native American veterans living on tribal lands 

that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. While limited data 

has made assessing need difficult, in fiscal year 2012, the VA conducted an analysis on the number of at-risk veterans living in Indian Country. Its limited analysis found that at least 2,047 veterans served by VA homeless programs were likely living in these 

areas, which demonstrates the need for supportive housing assistance. Moreover, tribes are seeking access to HUD–VASH vouchers 

to assist their veterans. While differences in programs and the limited availability of housing in Indian Country makes adoption of 

the existing HUD–VASH model challenging, the Committee wants 

to understand how to effectively meet this need. 

The Committee has set-aside $3,000,000 from the $78,000,000 

recommended for HUD–VASH for a pilot designed to provide housing and supportive services to veterans who are homeless or at-risk 

of homelessness living on tribal reservations or in Indian areas. 

The rental assistance and administrative costs associated with this 

pilot will be run through the Indian Housing Block Grant program 

to ensure funding is provided to appropriate housing providers and 

that there is consistency in the implementation of rental assistance 

and program rules for selected providers. The Office of Native 
108 

American Programs [ONAP] should work with PIH’s Voucher Office on effective ways to apply the HUD–VASH model on tribal 

lands. The Voucher Office and ONAP should work together with 

the Department of Veterans Affairs on referrals to the program and 

to ensure services are appropriately provided to participating veterans. Given the unique housing challenges on reservations that 

will require modifications to the existing HUD–VASH model, HUD 

should consider using vouchers to facilitate the creation of new 

housing. The Committee has also included funding to provide culturally appropriate technical assistance to tribes administering the 

housing-plus services model. 

HUD–VASH Move-in Costs.—The Committee notes that move-in 

costs can present a problem for homeless veterans trying to secure 

housing as part of the HUD–VASH program. The Committee recognizes this challenge and urges HUD to work with the VA, as well 

as local and national organizations to identify resources that can 

be used to assist homeless veterans with these expenses. 

Administrative Fees.—The Committee recommends 

$1,685,374,000 for administrative fees, which is equal to the budget 

request and $313,124,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted 

level. Cuts to the funding provided to PHAs to help them operate 

their programs are beginning to adversely affect their ability to 

serve tenants. As HUD noted in its Congressional justification and 

in testimony before the Committee, several PHAs have transferred 

their programs to other agencies, while others have refused new 

HUD–VASH vouchers because of insufficient administrative fees. 

As a result, the Committee has agreed to the Administration’s request to increase administrative fees. 

In fiscal year 2008, the Committee provided HUD with funding 

to begin a study on the amount of administrative fees necessary for 

PHAs to effectively manage their section 8 programs. While such 

a study involves a significant amount of time and requires the voluntary participation of housing authorities, the study should be 

complete by now. The Committee directs HUD to provide at least 

preliminary information from the study to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of the enactment of 

this act, as well as the date when final report will be issued. 

Tenant Protection Vouchers.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $150,000,000 for tenant protection vouchers. These vouchers are provided to public housing residents whose buildings have 

health or safety issues, or whose projects are being demolished. 

However, the largest share of these vouchers is provided to tenants 

living in properties with expiring HUD assistance that may face 

rent increases if their owners opt out of HUD programs. In these 

instances, the vouchers ensure continued affordability of tenants’ 

housing. The Committee notes that due to the timing of the original contracts, HUD is now experiencing a surge in contract expirations, driving up demand for these vouchers. The Committee expects that fiscal year 2014 will be the peak in demand, which is 

expected to decrease in future fiscal years. 

Mainstream Vouchers.—A total of $110,564,000 is included under 

this heading to support the renewal of vouchers previously funded 

under the heading ‘‘Housing for Persons with Disabilities’’. These 

vouchers are not included as part of the renewal base because the 
109 

Committee wants to ensure that these vouchers remain dedicated 

to serving persons with disabilities as intended. 

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(INCLUDES RESCISSIONS)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Until fiscal year 2005, the Housing Certificate Fund provided 

funding for both the project-based and tenant-based components of 

the section 8 program. Project-based rental assistance and tenantbased rental assistance are now separately funded accounts. The 

Housing Certificate Fund retains balances from previous years’ appropriations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has not included a rescission from the Housing 

Certificate Fund in fiscal year 2014, consistent with the President’s 

request. The Committee has included language that will allow unobligated balances from specific accounts to be used to renew or 

amend Project-Based Rental Assistance contracts. 

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $1,871,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 2,000,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,000,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for modernization and capital 

needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing authorities), including management improvements, resident relocation, 

and homeownership activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is equal to the budget 

request and $128,750,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted 

level. 

The Public Housing Capital Fund supports the maintenance of 

critical affordable housing, which provides more than 1.1 million 

low-income households with affordable housing. Unfortunately, limited resources have affected the ability of public housing authorities to upgrade and preserve these facilities. The regular deferral 

of maintenance has resulted in a significant backlog of capital 

needs, which over the long-term can increase the cost of maintenance and result in lost units. A HUD study estimated the backlog 

of public housing capital improvements to require approximately 

$26,000,000,000 to eliminate, as of June 2008. While some progress 

was noted since the last study was conducted in 1998, and funding 

provided for capital improvements in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act helped, the backlog remains significant. While 
110 

the level provided is not sufficient to meet the capital needs of public housing, the increase reflects the Committee’s commitment to 

this valuable asset. 

Of the amount made available under this section, $50,000,000 is 

for supportive services for residents of public housing under the 

Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency [ROSS] program. The 

Committee also recommends up to $8,000,000 to support the ongoing financial and physical assessment activities performed by the 

Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC]. The Committee has not included any funding for the cost of administrative and judicial receiverships, as requested, since carryover balances from prior years 

are sufficient to cover these activities in fiscal year 2014. 

The Committee notes that HUD provided limited information in 

its Congressional justification on how funding previously provided 

for both REAC and receiverships has been utilized. Similarly, the 

justification for funding requested in fiscal year 2014 for REAC is 

insufficient for the Committee to make informed decisions on appropriate funding levels. While this information has been provided 

to the Committee upon request, the information should be provided 

as part of its justification. Therefore, the Committee directs HUD 

to provided detailed information on these accounts in its fiscal year 

2015 congressional justification. This should include how funding 

provided in previous years was utilized and the amount requested 

by activity. Receivership activities should also be broken down by 

housing authority. Moreover, since REAC supports activities of PIH 

and the Office of Housing, the Committee expects HUD to detail 

how its activities are being coordinated with other offices. The Committee has also set aside $20,000,000 for emergency capital needs, including safety and security measures necessary to address crime and drug-related activity, as well as needs resulting 

from unforeseen or unpreventable emergencies and natural disasters, excluding presidentially declared emergencies and natural disasters. The Committee reminds HUD that safety and security funding is an eligible use of these funds. The Committee continues this 

eligibility because there are PHAs facing safety and security issues 

that rely on these funds to protect their tenants. The Committee 

believes that the level of funding recommended will support both 

repairs from disasters and safety and security improvements. 

Therefore the Committee directs the Department to fund eligible 

safety and security projects with a portion of these funds as quickly 

as possible. 

Jobs-Plus.—The Committee has included up to $15,000,000 for 

the Jobs-Plus Initiative, similar to what was proposed in the budget. This initiative is based on a demonstration the Department 

began in 1998 to improve employment opportunities and earnings 

of public housing residents. The demonstration combined employment-related services and activities, financial incentives to work, 

and community support. The data showed that, on average, compared to other public housing residents, those in the program 

earned an additional $1,300 per year from 2000–2006. As a result, 

these residents were either able to leave public housing or contribute more to their housing costs. The Committee supports 

HUD’s efforts to find ways to help public housing residents find 

employment and achieve greater economic self-sufficiency. It also 
111 

agrees with the focus on strong partnerships with local Workforce 

Investment Boards. Through such partnerships, PHAs can leverage 

existing systems, services, and resources to have a greater impact 

on their residents. 

In reviewing the Jobs-Plus proposal, it became apparent that 

there was overlap between the services that were critical to a successful Jobs-Plus program and those being offered as part of the existing ROSS program. The Committee believes that applying the 

lessons learned from the Jobs-Plus demonstration to ROSS employment and training programs will strengthen them. The Committee 

has provided sufficient funding to support Jobs-Plus related services while continuing other resident services supported through the 

ROSS program, including services for the elderly and disabled. In 

addition, the Committee has provided funding for incentives and 

community outreach that are an important to the success of the 

Jobs-Plus model. 

In addition to the service funding provided through ROSS, the 

Committee also hopes that public housing authorities will be able 

to successfully leverage other resources to provide the necessary intensive services that lead to the best outcomes. The Committee expects that HUD will use existing research and data to ensure that 

grantees implement Jobs-Plus programs effectively. The activities 

highlighted include onsite services and community engagement. 

The Committee also hopes the lessons learned from this can be applied to programs for section 8 residents. 

Services for Public Housing Residents.—The Committee understands the importance of tenant services in increasing the housing 

stability, health outcomes, and self-sufficiency of public housing 

residents. While there are a variety of services that PHAs offer 

their residents, the Committee is unaware of the metrics HUD uses 

to evaluate the effectiveness of those services, especially as provided through the ROSS program. The Committee wants to better 

understand how PHAs deploy ROSS funding and how those services affect public housing residents. Therefore, the Committee has 

set-aside funding under the Transformation Initiative to conduct 

an assessment of the ROSS program. This assessment should look 

at various ways PHAs use ROSS funds, identify best practices, and 

recommend approaches that may increase the effectiveness of the 

program. It should also provide information on how HUD measures 

program outcomes. 

The Committee is also aware of the challenges that some PHAs 

face in creating long-term sustainable plans for providing and funding services for their residents. Some of these challenges arise from 

a reliance on short-term funding sources. The Committee believes 

that PHAs would benefit from assistance in developing better funding plans, and specifically, ways to leverage other sources of funding. Therefore, the Committee has also set-aside funding under the 

Transformation Initiative to provide technical assistance to housing 

authorities and resident groups and boards to improve service delivery, maximize leveraging of other resources, and ensure effective 

services for public housing residents. 

Literacy Programs.—The Committee notes the importance of education and financial literacy in helping families improve life skills 

and increase their economic opportunities. An evaluation of the 
112 

Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] Program conducted by HUD found 

that families that exited the program before graduation had less 

education than program graduates. Increasing educational and financial literacy services for public housing residents offers an opportunity to increase the success of participants in FSS and other 

employment programs. The Committee encourages HUD to work 

with national community-based literacy organizations to identify 

models that successfully incorporate adult literacy programs into 

HUD sponsored housing initiatives. Successful models should link 

these programs to job readiness and post secondary transition initiatives, which will help adults with low literacy skills become more 

financially literate and gain the skills necessary to make informed 

decisions about the use and management of money. HUD should 

develop and share best practices with PHAs and other housing providers to expand services to adult learners. 

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $4,253,486,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 4,600,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,600,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the payment of operating subsidies to approximately 3,100 public housing authorities (except Indian housing authorities) with a total of approximately 1.2 million 

units under management in order to augment rent payments by 

residents in order to provide sufficient revenues to meet reasonable 

operating costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,600,000,000 

for the public housing operating fund, which is equal to the budget 

request and $346,514,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted 

level. The Committee notes that in fiscal year 2012, Congress instituted an offset of public housing authority reserves, reducing the 

new funding provided to support the operation of public housing, 

forcing PHAs to utilize reserves to fund regular operations. While 

the Committee had intended to restore funding in fiscal year 2013, 

only part of the funding was restored in that year due to the continuing resolution. As a result, while the increase over the 2013 enacted level is significant, it is $26,000,000 below the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level. 

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $119,760,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 400,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 250,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative provides competitive grants 

to transform impoverished neighborhoods into functioning, sustainable, mixed-income neighborhoods with co-location of appropriate 
113 

services, schools, public assets, transportation options, and access 

to jobs or job training. The goal of the program is to demonstrate 

that concentrated and coordinated neighborhood investments from 

multiple sources can transform a distressed neighborhood and improve the quality of life of residents. 

Choice Neighborhoods grants fund the preservation, rehabilitation, and transformation of public and HUD-assisted housing as 

well as their neighborhoods. The program builds on the successes 

of public housing transformation under HOPE VI with a broader 

approach to concentrated poverty. Grantees include public housing 

authorities, tribes, local governments, and nonprofit organizations. 

For-profit developers may also apply in partnership with another 

eligible grantee. Grant funds can be used for resident and community services, community development and affordable housing activities in surrounding communities. Grantees undertake comprehensive local planning with input from residents and the community. A strong emphasis is placed on local community planning 

for school and educational improvements, including early childhood 

initiatives. 

The Department also places a strong emphasis on coordination 

with other Federal agencies, notably the Departments of Education, Labor, Transportation, Health and Human Services, and 

Justice, to leverage additional resources. Where possible, the program is coordinated with the Department of Education’s Promise 

Neighborhoods Initiative. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $250,000,000 for 

the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. This amount is $130,240,000 

more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and $150,000,000 less 

than the amount requested by the President. Choice Neighborhoods 

seeks to build on the HOPE VI program by expanding the types of 

eligible grantees and allowing funding to be used on HUD-owned 

or assisted housing, as well as the surrounding community. However, the Committee notes that the work to replace distressed public housing is not yet complete. Therefore, the Committee has included language that stipulates that not less than $165,000,000 of 

the funding provided shall be awarded to projects where public 

housing authorities are the lead applicant. 

Choice Neighborhoods is part of a broader Administration initiative, Promise Zones, which is focused on investing in designated 

high poverty neighborhoods. Under the proposal, HUD investments 

will be coordinated with resources from other agencies, such as the 

Departments of Education and Justice, and targeted to select 

neighborhoods to increase their impact. The Committee supports 

this initiative and its focus on distressed neighborhoods. At the 

same time, the goal of Choice Neighborhoods is to replace distressed housing as a way to improve communities and the lives of 

residents. Therefore, HUD should not limit applicants to a narrowly defined set of neighborhoods since it may prevent the replacement of eligible and worthy public or assisted housing projects 

that are outside such designated neighborhoods from competing for 

funding. 
114 

Inherent in the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative is the understanding that community transformation requires more than replacing housing. The creation of vibrant, sustainable communities 

also requires greater access to transportation, jobs and services 

that will increase opportunities for community residents. However, 

HUD funding cannot support all of these activities. The Committee 

has been encouraged by the ability of Choice Neighborhood grantees to leverage significant resources with their grant awards. Since 

2010, Choice Neighborhood implementation grant recipients have 

used the combined $231,160,000 they were awarded to leverage 

over $2,000,000,000 in other resources. The Committee agrees with 

the emphasis that HUD has placed on ensuring that projects gain 

financial support from other sources, as well as its focus on strong 

local and Federal partnerships. 

Dr. Susan Popkin from the Urban Institute has conducted research on HOPE VI projects and the effect of redevelopment on 

residents. She has determined that integrating health, employment 

and other supportive services into redevelopment projects is critical 

to improving the lives of residents, particularly those with the 

highest needs. 

While the Committee has been encouraged by the number and 

diversity of service partners participating in Choice projects and 

the services proposed for residents, the ultimate success of grantees 

in improving residents’ lives depends on implementation of these 

plans. Therefore, the Committee wants to ensure that the services 

promised to public housing and other residents in Choice Neighborhoods are delivered. As the implementation grants move forward 

and HUD considers future applications, the Committee expects 

HUD to ensure that these service commitments are met. It should 

also work to make sure that grantees utilize best practices in designing and implementing service models. 

FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... $75,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 75,000,000 

1 $59,880,000 was provided under the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Account for this activity, which does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester under Public Law 112–25. An additional 

$15,000,000 was provided for this activity under the Public Housing Capital Fund. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] program provides funding to 

help Housing Choice Voucher and Public Housing residents achieve 

self-sufficiency and economic independence. The FSS program is 

designed to provide service coordination through community partnerships that link residents with employment assistance, job training, child care, transportation, financial literacy, and other supportive services. The funding will be allocated through one competition to eligible Public Housing Authorities [PHAs] to support service coordinators who will serve both public housing and vouchers 

residents. 
115 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,000,000 for 

the Family Self-Sufficiency program in fiscal year 2014, an amount 

equal to the President’s request. While no funding was provided 

under this heading in fiscal year 2013, $59,880,000 was provided 

under the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance account for FSS coordinators serving voucher holders and $15,000,000 was provided out 

of the Resident Opportunity and Self Sufficient set-aside in the 

Public Housing Capital Fund for coordinators assisting public housing residents. The two programs have been consolidated to increase 

efficiency since many PHAs serve both section 8 and public housing 

residents. 

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $648,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 650,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 675,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds the Native American Housing Block Grant 

Program, as authorized under title I of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 [NAHASDA]. 

This program provides a funding allocation on a formula basis to 

Indian tribes and their tribally designated housing entities to help 

address the housing needs within their communities. Under this 

block grant, Indian tribes use performance measures and benchmarks that are consistent with the national goals of the program, 

but can base these measures on the needs and priorities established in their own Indian housing plan. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $675,000,000 for 

the Native American Housing Block Grant Program, of which 

$2,000,000 is set aside for a credit subsidy to support a loan level 

not to exceed $16,530,000 for the Title VI Loan Guarantee Program. The recommended level of funding is $26,300,000 more than 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2013, and $25,000,000 above the 

budget request. 

The Native American Housing Block Grant Program is a vital resource for tribal governments to address the dire housing conditions in Indian Country. Access to affordable housing has reached 

a critical state for many tribes across the country. Native Americans are twice as likely to live in poverty compared to the rest of 

the Nation. As a result, the housing challenges on tribal lands are 

daunting. According to the U.S. Census American Community Survey for 2006–2010, 8.5 percent of homes on American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust land are overcrowded, compared 

to 3.4 percent of households nationwide. The number of households 

on reservation lands that spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing has risen 47 percent over the past decade. 

To better understand housing conditions in Indian Country, in 

2010, the Committee directed HUD to conduct a tribal housing 
116 

needs assessment. The most recent data is from 1996, and clearly 

the housing conditions in Indian Country have only gotten worse. 

The Committee directs HUD to complete work on the new assessment by September 30, 2014. The Committee believes this will provide Congress with valuable information of the full scope of the 

tribal housing crisis. 

The subcommittee staff conducted site visits to several tribes 

over the course of the past year to better understand the challenges 

to developing and maintaining affordable housing in Indian country. The conditions found there were disturbing and the magnitude 

of the need overwhelming. Many Tribally Designated Housing Entities [TDHE] lack access to financing and credit to develop new 

housing due to the difficulty of financing when trust lands are involved. Most development projects take 3 years or longer to complete due to issues related to Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] land 

approvals, permitting approvals by both the Federal Government 

and tribal government, and the lack of infrastructure in many of 

these sparse, remote locations. In 2012, the Committee directed 

GAO to conduct an analysis of these and other challenges associated with the development of affordable housing in Indian Country. 

The Committee believes this evaluation should highlight best practices to assist TDHEs with addressing the significant housing 

needs they face, and provide recommendations on ways to streamline conveyance and permitting requirements. 

Technical Assistance.—The Committee recommends $4,000,000 

for technical assistance through a national organization representing Native American housing interests as authorized under 

NAHASDA (25 U.S.C. 4212), and $2,000,000 for inspections of Indian housing units, contract expertise, training, technical assistance, oversight, and management. 

The Committee has noted GAO’s assessment that limited capacity hinders the ability of many tribes to effectively address their 

housing needs. The Committee expects HUD to use the technical 

assistance funding provided to aid tribes with capacity challenges, 

especially tribes receiving small grant awards. The funding should 

be used for training, contract expertise, and other services necessary to improve data collection, increase leveraging, and address 

other needs identified by tribes. The Committee expects that any 

assistance provided by HUD will reflect the unique needs and culture of Native Americans. 

As HUD works to address the needs of tribes, and especially 

smaller tribes, the Committee hopes that HUD will look to identify 

opportunities to coordinate with other agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $12,974,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 13,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide 
117 

grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home 

Lands for housing and housing-related assistance, in order to develop, maintain, and operate affordable housing for eligible low-income Native Hawaiian families. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,000,000 for 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program, which is 

$26,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and equal to 

the budget request. Of the amount provided, $300,000 may be for 

training and technical assistance activities, including up to 

$100,000 for related travel for Hawaii-based HUD employees. 

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Program account 

Limitation on 

guaranteed 

loans 

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................................................ $12,176,000 $976,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................................................... 6,000,000 1,818,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 6,000,000 1,818,000,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for Indian families, Indian tribes, and their tribally designated housing entities 

that otherwise could not acquire housing financing because of the 

unique status of Indian trust land. HUD continues to be the largest 

single source of financing for housing in tribal communities. This 

program makes it possible to promote sustainable reservation communities by providing access to financing for higher income Native 

Americans to achieve homeownership in Native communities. As 

required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees authorized under this program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,000,000 in 

program subsidies to support a loan level of $1,818,000,000. This 

subsidy amount is $6,176,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted subsidy level and equal to the budget request. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account 

Limitation on 

guaranteed 

loans 

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................................................ $385,000 $41,504,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................................................... .......................... ..........................

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 385,000 41,504,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds. 
118 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for Native Hawaiians who otherwise could not acquire housing finance because 

of the unique status of the Hawaiian Home Lands as trust land. 

As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account 

includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees authorized under this program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $385,000 in program subsidies to support a loan level of $41,504,000, which is 

equal to the subsidy and loan levels provided in fiscal year 2013. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $331,336,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 332,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 332,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA] program provides States and localities with resources and incentives 

to devise long-term, comprehensive strategies for meeting the housing and supportive service needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS 

and their families. 

Since 1990, by statute, 90 percent of formula-appropriated funds 

are distributed to qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the 

basis of the number of AIDS cases and incidence of AIDS reported 

to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by March 31 of 

the year preceding the fiscal year. The remaining 10 percent of 

funds are awarded through a national competition, with priority 

given to the renewal of funding for expiring agreements consistent 

with appropriations act requirements. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $332,000,000 for 

the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA] program. This level of funding is equal to the President’s budget request and is $664,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

The Committee continues to include language requiring HUD to allocate these funds in a manner that preserves existing HOPWA 

programs, to the extent that those programs are determined to be 

meeting the needs of persons with HIV/AIDS. 

The HOPWA program currently provides short-term and permanent housing assistance and stabilizing supportive services to more 

than 56,000 households in 134 eligible areas nationwide. Of the 

households receiving assistance, 94 percent have extremely low or 

very low incomes. According to grantee annual reports from 2012, 

15 percent of new clients, representing 4,632 households, were 

homeless at program entry. Of these, 1,147 were identified as veterans. 
119 

The HOPWA program has proven effective at helping individuals 

with HIV/AIDS avoid homelessness and achieve housing stability. 

Research has demonstrated that stable housing provides a foundation for recipients to improve health, increase economic security, 

and move toward self-sufficiency. Grantees report that 90 percent 

of households receiving assistance in 2011 achieved housing stability and successfully accessed or maintained sources of income. 

Research also demonstrates that housing assistance and support 

services are a cost-effective alternative to hospitalization, emergency room services, and other higher levels of care. 

While the HOPWA program has demonstrated success, there is 

still substantial work to be done to meet the housing demand of 

low-income persons with HIV/AIDS. HOPWA grantees report they 

are only able to directly address about two-fifths of the identified 

eligible housing need at program’s current funding level. 

Legislative Reauthorization Proposal.—The Committee recognizes 

that the HOPWA statute requires an update to the formula funding to target limited resources to communities most impacted by 

HIV. The proposal to expand short-term homeless prevention services could provide valuable flexibility to grantees to stabilize vulnerable, extremely low-income households. The Committee encourages HUD to engage with stakeholders on the benefits of a new reauthorization proposal that updates the program. HUD should 

work with the respective House and Senate authorization committees to enact these and other much needed reforms to the program. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... $19,301,494,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 3,143,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,295,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2 Includes emergency funding of $16,000,000,000 in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 

2013 (division A of Public Law 113–2). 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award block 

grants to units of general local government and States for the funding of local community development programs. A wide range of 

physical, economic, and social development activities are eligible 

with spending priorities determined at the local level, but the law 

enumerates general objectives which the block grants are designed 

to fulfill, including adequate housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities, principally for persons 

of low and moderate income. Grant recipients are required to use 

at least 70 percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. 

Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective formulas, one 

of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age of housing 

stock. Of the funds appropriated, 70 percent are distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting designated amounts for setasides for insular areas and Indian CDBG. 
120 

The resources provided under this program will also fund Integrated Planning and Investment Grants program, which is part of 

the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, and includes HUD 

and the Department of Transportation [DOT]. This effort will improve coordination of transportation and housing investments that 

result in more regional and local sustainable development patterns, 

better strategies to increase economic competitiveness, and more 

transit accessible housing choices for residents. These funds will 

stimulate more integrated regional planning to guide State, metropolitan, and local decisions, investments, and reforms in land use, 

transportation, and housing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,295,000,000 

for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2014. This 

level is $151,900,000 more than the budget request and 

$16,006,474,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. However, $16,000,000,000 in emergency funding was provided in fiscal 

year 2013 for recovery from Hurricane Sandy and other disasters. 

When disaster funding is excluded, the amount recommended by 

the Committee is $6,474,000 less than the 2013 level. 

The Committee has provided $3,150,000,000 for Community Development Block Grants. The recommended amount is 

$351,900,000 more than the budget request and $91,594,000 less 

than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The Committee recommendation does not include funding for the Administration’s 

proposed Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative and has directed additional funding to the CDBG formula instead. CDBG funding provides States and entitlement communities across the Nation with 

resources that allow them to undertake a wide range of community 

development activities, including public infrastructure improvements, housing rehabilitation and construction, job creation and retention, and public services that primarily benefit low and moderate income persons. 

The flexibility associated with CDBG enables State and local governments to tailor solutions to effectively meet the unique needs of 

their communities. The investments made through CDBG help support infrastructure, small businesses, housing and services important to strong communities. The impact of these investments reverberates through communities, leveraging additional sources of 

funding and creating thousands of jobs. 

While the Committee remains committed to the CDBG program, 

it also wants to make sure that funding is used effectively. Therefore, the Committee has included a provision in bill language that 

prohibits any community from selling its CDBG award to another 

community. In addition, the Committee has added a requirement 

that any funding provided to a for-profit entity for an economic development project funded under this bill undergo appropriate underwriting. The Committee has included these provisions to address concerns raised about how program dollars have been used 

and mitigate risks associated with it. 

The Committee acknowledges the steps the Administration has 

taken to improve the oversight and transparency in the program. 

In May 2012, HUD announced the overhaul of its consolidated 
121 

planning process, which is a requirement of receiving funding. 

HUD moved from an intensive paper-based planning process to an 

online system. The new tools created by HUD include an expanded 

planning system, a mapping tool and an electronic template for 

submitting the consolidated plans. Through these tools, communities will have increased access to information from such sources 

as the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Community Survey 

on the housing needs of their residents, the characteristics of their 

housing stock and the extent of homelessness in their communities. 

In addition, information on HUD investments such as the location 

of public and multifamily housing will be easily accessible to communities. This information should help communities make more informed decisions about how to allocate their resources. It will also 

provide the public with additional transparency on how funds are 

being allocated in their community. 

The Committee understands that HUD is also beginning a process to evaluate the program to determine if additional changes in 

statute or regulation would make the CDBG program more effective. The Committee applauds this effort and expects to see additional recommendations on how to strengthen the program in the 

fiscal year 2015 budget. 

The Committee has not included language establishing a minimum grant amount necessary to become or remain an entitlement 

community. While there is some merit to the proposal, the Committee is concerned about the impact of this change on smaller 

communities. Under the proposal, communities that would otherwise have directly received funding would have to compete with 

other communities for a portion of the funding allocated to their 

state. However, the amount they would have otherwise received 

would not be added to their State allocation, leaving more communities to compete for the same amount of funding. The Committee 

notes that communities that have voluntarily joined an urban 

county for purposes of CDBG allocations have achieved efficiencies 

similar to those envisioned under HUD’s proposal. The Committee 

encourages HUD to educate communities that receive small awards 

about the potential program benefits of joining an urban community. 

The Committee includes $70,000,000 for grants to Indian tribes 

for essential economic and community development activities which 

is equal to the budget request and $10,120,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2013 enacted level. 

Mold Remediation and Prevention.—The Committee is concerned 

about the prevalence of mold in Native American housing; a study 

conducted by HUD in 2003 found that 15 percent of the housing 

sampled was infected with mold. Since that study, additional tribes 

in places such as Montana and South Dakota have reported even 

greater incidence of mold in their housing. In 2004, the Institute 

of Medicine linked mold exposure to upper respiratory symptoms 

and asthma. To help address this issue, the Committee includes 

$10,000,000 to fund grants for mold remediation and prevention in 

Native American housing. The funding will be awarded to grantees 

through a single national competition to ensure that grants are 

awarded to tribes with greatest need. 
122 

In administering this funding and working to address mold in 

Native American housing, the Committee expects the Office of Native American Programs to work with the Office of Healthy Homes 

and Lead Hazard Reduction to ensure Native American communities have the information and assistance they need to effectively 

address this serious issue. 

Integrated Planning and Investment Grants.—The Committee 

has recommended $75,000,000 for Integrated Planning and Investment Grants. The funding provided will support the work of the 

Partnership for Sustainable Communities, an interagency collaboration among HUD, DOT, and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. The Committee notes that GAO has recognized the potential of this partnership to improve Federal collaboration by developing a common set of performance measures. 

The Committee has supported HUD’s investments in regional 

and community planning because successful planning efforts help 

communities make smarter investments to improve access to housing, transportation and jobs. It also enables communities to leverage other funding resources and maximize the impact of Federal 

investments. Under the redesigned Integrated Planning and Investments Grants, HUD is proposing changes to the former Sustainable Communities initiative to better reflect the goal of helping 

communities make smarter investments that will increase their 

economic stability and competitiveness. To support this effort, the 

Committee directs HUD to give greater weight when evaluating 

funding applications to projects that are focused on increasing economic competitiveness through such strategies as better utilizing or 

repurposing existing assets or creating jobs where people live. 

Part of the program redesign includes placing greater emphasis 

on identifying the funding sources that grantees will use to support 

the implementation of their plans. Such a requirement will help to 

ensure the plans grantees develop are utilized to guide decisions 

and investments. In addition, the Committee believes applicants 

must demonstrate through their plans how they will realign Federal investments to reduce overlap or duplication. 

Small and Rural Communities.—The Committee continues to be 

mindful of the needs of small and rural communities and has included a provision that requires that at least 25 percent of the 

funding provided be awarded to communities with a population less 

than 500,000. The Committee supports HUD’s recognition of the 

needs of smaller communities, including the additional set-aside it 

has created for communities with a population of less than 200,000. 

The Committee expects HUD to continue to pay special attention 

to the unique needs of small and rural communities that would 

also benefit from coordinated transportation and housing planning. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Program account 

Limitation on 

guaranteed 

loans 

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................................................ $5,940,000 $240,000,000

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................................................... .......................... 500,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... .......................... 500,000,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 
123 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal loan 

guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and nonentitlement communities to cover the costs of acquiring real property, rehabilitation of publicly owned real property, housing rehabilitation, and other economic development activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes the President’s proposal to make this a fee-based program, and provides no appropriation. However, the fee-based structure recommended by the Committee will support a loan level guarantee of $500,000,000 for the 

section 108 loan guarantees account for fiscal year 2014. This guaranteed loan level is $260,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 

level and equal to the President’s request. 

This program enables CDBG recipients to use their CDBG dollars as leverage as part of economic development projects and housing rehabilitation programs. Communities are allowed to borrow up 

to five times their most recent CDBG allocation. 

The Committee notes that changing to a fee-based system requires HUD to establish clear rules and guidance on how the program will operate. The Committee expects HUD to be ready to implement this new system upon enactment to ensure there is no 

delay for grantees that wish to utilize the program under its new 

structure. 

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $998,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 950,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This program provides assistance to States and local governments for the 

purpose of expanding the supply and affordability of housing to 

low-income and very low-income people. Eligible activities include 

tenant-based rental assistance, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing, and housing construction. 

To participate in the HOME program, State and local governments 

must develop a comprehensive housing affordability strategy. There 

is a 25 percent matching requirement for participating jurisdictions, which can be reduced or eliminated if they are experiencing 

fiscal distress. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000,000 

for the HOME Investment Partnership Program. This amount is 

$2,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and 

$50,000,000 more than the budget request. 
124 

The Committee has retained bill language from fiscal year 2012 

designed to reform and strengthen the HOME program. These reforms will address criticism raised by the HUD OIG and media 

about languishing projects, unqualified developers, and lax oversight by the Department. The Committee notes that HUD has published a proposed rule that will permanently incorporate these and 

other reforms into HOME regulations. The Committee is disappointed that the final rule hasn’t been released yet, requiring the 

Committee to retain its reform provisions. The Committee expects 

the Administration to move quickly to issue a final rule that will 

make these and other reforms permanent. 

The Committee notes that HUD has taken important steps to address the recommendations of the Inspector General by improving 

its ability to monitor HOME grantees. In fiscal year 2012, HUD 

conducted 339 HOME monitoring visits compared to 137 the previous year. Moreover, by enhancing the Integrated Disbursement 

and Information System [IDIS], which it uses to track projects, 

HUD has improved its ability to identify risky projects. For example, IDIS prevents grantees from starting new activities if they 

have received their final disbursement for another project, but 

haven’t completed their activity or entered accomplishment data for 

it within 120 days. As a result, the number of projects exceeding 

the 120-day requirement has been reduced by 96 percent since 

2011. HUD also has taken steps to address the number of stalled 

projects; the number of HOME activities with infrequent draws has 

been reduced by 65 percent and the number of projects open for 

more than 4 years has decreased by 58 percent. The Committee encourages HUD to continue its efforts to improve program oversight 

and strengthen the program. 

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $53,393,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 2 ......................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 53,500,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2The budget request shifts $10,000,000 for SHOP activities to the HOME program and cre- ates 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. 
125 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $53,500,000 for the Self-Help and 

Assisted Homeownership Program, which is $107,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The budget request would shift 

a portion of the funding for this program to the HOME program, 

and transition the section 4 program into a new Capacity Building 

program. This amount includes $13,500,000 for SHOP, as authorized under section 11 of the Housing Opportunity Extension Act of 

1996. The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for capacity building as authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 

1993, and notes that funding provided under this section requires 

a statutory 3-to-1 match to further leverage resources to assist 

more communities. The Committee provides $5,000,000 to carry out 

capacity building activities in rural communities. The Committee 

notes that funding for technical assistance is being provided under 

the Transformation Initiative and directs funds available for section 4 to be used solely for capacity building activities. 

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $2,028,934,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 2,381,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,261,190,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Homeless Assistance Grants Program provides funding to 

break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons and 

families to permanent housing. This is done by providing rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and permanent housing, 

prevention, rapid re-housing, and supportive services to homeless 

persons and families or those at risk of homelessness. The emergency solutions grant program is a formula grant program, while 

the Continuum of Care and Rural Housing Stability Programs are 

competitive grants. Homeless assistance grants provide Federal 

support to one of the Nation’s most vulnerable populations. These 

grants assist localities in addressing the housing and service needs 

of a wide variety of homeless populations while developing coordinated Continuum of Care [CoC] systems that ensure the support 

necessary to help those who are homeless to attain housing and 

move toward self-sufficiency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,261,190,000 

for Homeless Assistance Grants in fiscal year 2014. This amount 

is $119,810,000 less than the President’s request, and $232,256,000 

more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

As part of the Committee recommendation, at least 

$1,910,000,000 will support the Continuum of Care Program, including the renewal of existing projects, and the Rural Housing 

Stability Assistance Program. Based on the renewal burden, HUD 

may also support planning, as authorized. The recommendation 

also includes at least $336,000,000 for the emergency solutions 
126 

grants program [ESG], of which $50,000,000 is set aside for rapid 

re-housing in high-need communities. 

Rapid re-housing offers lower cost interventions for those experiencing homelessness. Eligible activities include short-term rental 

assistance, or assistance with security deposits or back rent, which 

allows families to stay in their homes or quickly leave homelessness. 

The Committee has been encouraged by communities’ success 

with rapid re-housing interventions. Indications of their success are 

evident in the results of the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid 

Re-housing program [HPRP], funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. According to data on the second year of 

HPRP, the vast majority of families with children were able to find 

permanent housing after receiving rapid re-housing assistance. 

Nearly 84 percent of families who received assistance for less than 

90 days exited to permanent housing, and nearly 86 percent of 

those that received longer-term assistance found housing. While 

rapid re-housing is not appropriate for every person experiencing 

or at-risk of homelessness, it is a valuable tool for communities to 

have to assist families. Implementing solutions for homeless families with children is particularly important as more families have 

experienced homelessness in recent years. According to the most 

recent Annual Homeless Assessment Report [AHAR], released by 

HUD in December 2012, while the number of sheltered people in 

families decreased by 5.3 percent between in 2010 and 2011, the 

number has increased by 13.5 percent since 2007. 

The Committee also notes the continued importance of assisting 

the chronically homeless. According to the most recent AHAR, the 

point-in-time count showed that chronic homelessness decreased by 

13.5 percent between 2007 and 2011. The Committee supports continued efforts to find and create permanent housing for the chronically homeless to achieve the goal of ending chronic homelessness 

by 2015. 

Annual Homeless Assessment Report.—AHAR stems from congressional directives begun in 2001 that charged the Department 

with collecting homeless data through the implementation of a new 

Homeless Management Information System [HMIS]. AHAR includes HMIS data, information provided by Continuums of Care, 

and a count of sheltered and unsheltered persons from one night 

in January of each year. The Committee is encouraged that Federal 

agencies are sharing homeless data and working towards using 

HMIS as a platform for gathering information in other Federal programs. Having consistent national data will allow the Federal Government to better understand the needs of the homeless and better 

align Federal services to meet these needs. To support continued 

data collection and AHAR, the Committee has included $7,000,000 

for data analysis and technical assistance. 

The Committee requests that HUD submit the AHAR report by 

June 20, 2014. The Committee further hopes that HUD’s efforts to 

increase participation in the HMIS effort will lead to improved information about and understanding of the Nation’s homeless. 

Renewal Costs.—The Committee directs HUD to continue to include 5-year projections of the costs of renewing existing projects 
127 

as part of the fiscal year 2015 budget justification. This should include estimated costs of renewing permanent supportive housing. 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... $9,321,793,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 1 ......................................................................... 10,270,000,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 10,772,000,000 

1 Includes an advance appropriation. 

2Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Section 8 project-based rental assistance provides a rental subsidy to a private landlord that is tied to a specific housing unit, as 

opposed to a voucher, which allows a recipient to seek a unit, subject primarily to certain rent caps. Amounts in this account include 

funding for the renewal of and amendments to expiring section 8 

project-based contracts, including section 8, moderate rehabilitation, and single room occupancy [SRO] housing. This account also 

provides funds for contract administrators. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The section 8 project-based rental assistance [PBRA] program 

provides more than 1.2 million low-income Americans with safe, 

stable, and sanitary housing. This program preserves affordable 

housing for many of the Nation’s most vulnerable at a time when 

the affordable housing stock is diminishing. Sixty-four percent of 

the tenants in PBRA housing units are elderly or disabled. Without 

PRBA, many affordable housing projects would convert to market 

rates, with large rent increases that current tenants would be unable to afford. 

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 

$10,772,000,000 for the annual renewal of project-based contracts, 

of which up to $265,000,000 is for the cost of contract administrators. The recommended level of funding is $1,451,007,000 more 

than the amount provided for in fiscal year 2013. The Committee 

has provided $500,000,000 more than the budget request to partially address the shortfall, but even at this level, a funding gap 

of $700,000,000 will remain in fiscal year 2014. The resources provided will require HUD to partially fund an estimated 390,000 

units in fiscal year 2014. 

The Committee’s recommendation also includes several cost-saving measures proposed in the administration’s budget, including 

applying residual receipts to offset assistance payments for new 

and old regulations contracts; limiting exception rent levels to the 

operating cost adjustment factor [OCAF]; applying Small Area Fair 

Market Rents as a benchmark for rents subject to comparability; 

and shortening vacancy payments. 

Short-Funding.—For many years, PBRA was plagued by inadequate budgets that threatened the supply of affordable housing. 

Moreover, the policy of short-funding contracts devised to keep the 

program within budget jeopardized the Department’s credibility, 

created unnecessary administrative inefficiencies and reduced in-
128 

vestor confidence. The Committee provided significant resources in 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to address the shortfall and enable HUD to fully fund contracts. Sufficient resources 

have been provided each year since then, putting the program back 

on sound footing and restoring investor confidence. Unfortunately, 

the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2013 did not make adjustments to the budget necessary to fully fund existing contracts. Consequently, under the request, PBRA faces a $725,000,000 shortfall 

before factoring in sequestration. When combined with the impact 

of sequestration, the proposed program faces a $1,200,000,000 

shortfall. While the Office of Multifamily Housing is implementing 

cost savings measures to help minimize disruptions to owners and 

tenants alike, the revenue that such steps are expected to generate 

in the next fiscal year are minimal compared to the magnitude of 

the overall shortfall problem. 

As noted earlier, the Committee has partially addressed the shortfall by recommending an additional $500,000,000 for the program above the request. The Committee has had to make difficult 

choices in allocating resources across programs and recognizes that 

funding shortfalls can increase the perceived risk to future funding 

and lead to unintended costs to owners, lenders, and investors. Despite the funding shortfall in 2014, the Committee reaffirms its 

commitment to the project-based rental assistance model as evidenced by funding for section 8, multifamily housing, and public 

housing programs. The Committee encourages the Department to 

manage the funding provided to ensure an uninterrupted flow of 

funds to support this critical housing resource. 

Performance-Based Contract Administrators.—Performance-based 

contract administrators [PBCAs], which are typically public housing authorities or State housing finance agencies, are responsible 

for conducting on-site management reviews of assisted properties; 

adjusting contract rents; and reviewing, processing, and paying 

monthly vouchers submitted by owners. The Committee notes that 

PBCAs are integral to the Department’s efforts to be more effective 

and efficient in the oversight and monitoring of this program. The 

Committee is also aware of ongoing litigation that will affect the 

future of these entities and will continue to monitor developments. 

Oversight of Property Owners.—The Committee places a priority 

on providing access to affordable housing to those most in need. 

Therefore, the Committee is disturbed that some properties continue to receive Federal subsidies despite unsafe or unsanitary conditions. It is incumbent upon HUD to ensure that these properties 

are safe for residents. Moreover, if owners fail to maintain their 

properties in accordance with HUD standards, they should be held 

accountable. While there is a tension between holding property 

owners responsible and ensuring tenants don’t lose their housing, 

HUD has tools at its disposal to hold owners accountable without 

putting tenants at risk. 

The Committee notes that HUD has recently taken important 

steps to increase its oversight of multifamily properties. It 

launched the Sustaining Our Investments Initiative, which is designed to ensure consistent guidance to all project owners and to 

provide clarity on how non-compliance will be addressed. An important part of this initiative is assessing and providing a risk rating 
129 

to the PBRA portfolio, which will be completed by the beginning of 

the 2014 fiscal year. 

To ensure continued attention to this issue, the Committee recommendation includes a general provision that requires HUD to 

take specific steps to ensure that physical deficiencies in properties 

are quickly addressed, and requires the Secretary to take explicit 

actions if the owner fails to maintain them. These actions include 

imposing civil money penalties, working to secure a different owner 

for the property, or transferring the section 8 contract to another 

the property. The Committee wants to preserve critical projectbased section 8 contracts, and believes this goal can be achieved 

while holding property owners accountable for their actions. 

The Committee expects HUD to move quickly to identify problem 

properties and owners and find an appropriate remedy. The Committee directs HUD to provide semi-annual reports to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the number of 

projects that receive multiple exigent health and safety violations; 

physical inspection scores below 30; and actions taken to address 

safety concerns, including the frequency with which civil money 

penalties are imposed, contracts are transferred to another property, or ownership is transferred. The Committee expects that with 

increased enforcement these numbers will quickly be reduced. 

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $373,878,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 400,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 400,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds housing for the elderly under section 202 of 

the Housing Act of 1959. Under this program, the Department provides capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing for seniors, and provides projectbased rental assistance contracts [PRAC] to support operational 

costs for such units. Tenants living in section 202 supportive housing units can access a variety of community-based services to keep 

living independently in the community and age in place. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $400,000,000 for 

the section 202 program. This level is equal to the budget request 

and $26,122,000 above the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for service coordinators and the 

continuation of existing congregate service grants, and $20,000,000 

for an Elderly Project Rental Assistance demonstration. 

The section 202 program provides over 410,000 federally assisted, privately owned affordable apartments for the elderly. An 

additional 6,399 housing units are currently in the construction 

pipeline, using funding appropriated in prior years. Assuming the 

current average per-unit rental assistance rate, the 202 program 

will need an additional $35,777,000 in rental assistance annually, 

as new housing units under construction become available for occupancy. 
130 

While this is a sizeable Federal investment, the Committee recognizes that the supply of affordable housing to assist low-income 

elderly is insufficient to meet current demand. The shortage is expected to increase for the foreseeable future as the number of 

Americans aged 65 and older grows. The Seniors Commission 

projects that by 2020, there will be an estimated 1.3 million elderly 

Americans with incomes at or below 150 percent of poverty. 

Elderly Project Rental Assistance Demonstration.—The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of $20,000,000 

for HUD’s proposed demonstration for elderly housing. The Committee also provides the authority to recapture residual receipts, 

collections, and other unobligated balances in this account, which 

HUD projects will provide an additional $26,000,000 in resources 

to contribute towards the demonstration. 

For many years, HUD and the Department of Health and 

Human Services [HHS] have asserted that elderly housing investments can achieve cost savings to Federal and State healthcare 

systems. According to HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research, 38 percent of existing section 202 tenants are frail or nearfrail, requiring assistance with basic activities of daily living, and 

thus at-risk for placement in a nursing home. The average annual 

housing assistance cost of a section 202 unit with Medicaid supportive services is $20,256, whereas the national annual average 

cost per resident for an assisted living unit for a Medicaid beneficiary is $37,980 per year. Therefore, one could project that by providing section 202 housing assistance rather than Medicaid assisted living, the savings to the Federal Government would exceed 

$17,500 per person annually. While there is a simple understanding of the macroeconomic data, HUD has offered no empirical 

evidence to determine which senior populations might be appropriately served under the section 202 program as compared to the 

more expensive assisted living or nursing home care scenarios. 

To that end, HUD, HHS, and the State of Vermont have recently 

undertaken several new research projects intended to provide new 

information on: the healthcare use of seniors that reside in HUDassisted housing; how coordinated health and supportive services 

in affordable housing for seniors could achieve saving in healthcare 

costs; and, how the elements of housing with supportive services 

could enhance aging in place for seniors. The Committee believes 

it is important for the new demonstration HUD is planning to 

make significant headway in addressing whether rental assistance 

combined with supportive services can delay the need for more 

costly assisted living or nursing home care. Based on the justification provided by HUD, the demonstration will help develop a tool 

for State housing and health agencies to coordinate services for elderly populations that would most benefit from housing assistance 

with supportive services and who are most likely to otherwise require nursing home care. This is valuable research, but the Committee directs HUD to use the resources provided for this demonstration to begin answering the fundamental question of what 

kinds of services make it possible to defer or avoid more costly alternatives. The Committee directs the Office of Policy Development 

and Research to work jointly with the Office of Housing to develop 

the criteria, performance measures, and other requirements related 
131 

to the demonstration. The Committee directs HUD to provide written reports prepared by both offices semi-annually to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the progress of the 

demonstration and other aforementioned research projects for as 

long as they continue. HUD should provide the first of these written reports within 30 days of the date of enactment of this act. 

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $164,670,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 126,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 126,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for housing for the persons with 

disabilities under section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzales National 

Affordable Housing Act of 1990. Traditionally, the section 811 program provided capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition, 

rehabilitation, or construction of housing for persons with disabilities, as well as rental assistance to support operational costs. 

Since fiscal year 2012, HUD has transitioned to expanding capacity 

by providing project rental assistance to State housing financing 

agencies or other appropriate entities that act in partnership with 

State health and human service agencies to provide supportive 

services as authorized by the Frank Melville Supportive Housing 

Investment Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–374). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $126,000,000 for 

the section 811 program. This level is equal to the budget request 

and is $38,670,000 below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. This 

level of funding supports all PRAC renewals and amendments, and 

allows the Secretary to continue to provide project rental assistance 

to State housing finance agencies. The Committee also allows HUD 

to collect residual receipts and recaptures in fiscal year 2014. HUD 

estimates this authority will generate an additional $12,000,000 in 

available resources, increasing the total amount of funds available 

for project rental assistance to $32,000,000 for new projects. 

HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $44,915,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 55,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 55,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Counseling Assistance Program provides comprehensive housing counseling services to eligible homeowners and 

tenants through grants to nonprofit intermediaries, State government entities, and other local and national agencies. Eligible counseling activities include pre- and post-purchase education, personal 

financial management, reverse mortgage product education, foreclosure prevention, mitigation, and rental counseling. 
132 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $55,000,000 for 

the Housing Counseling Assistance program, which is equal to the 

budget request and $10,085,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The funds provided will help individuals and families 

across the country make better-informed housing decisions. The 

Committee has included language requiring HUD to obligate counseling grants within 120 days of enactment of this act to ensure 

that funding is made quickly available to clients in need of services. 

The Housing Counseling Assistance program serves a range of 

clients and needs. Those receiving counseling include distressed 

homeowners facing delinquency or foreclosure, seniors seeking a 

Home Equity Conversion Mortgage [HECM], low-income renters 

seeking affordable housing, as well as prospective homebuyers looking to purchase their first home. By design, this program allows 

local agencies to provide the type of counseling services their clients need. 

The Committee recommendation includes increased funding to 

cover activities required under The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 

and Consumer Protection Act, such as testing and certification of 

counselors and ensuring accountability for grant recipients, as well 

as counselor training. The recommendation also includes increased 

funding, as requested, for grants to housing counseling agencies. 

HECM Counseling.—Borrowers who are interested in obtaining a 

HECM loan are required to undergo counseling to ensure they understand the product. In testimony before the Committee, the HUD 

Inspector General voiced his concern about the effectiveness of 

housing counselors in informing potential borrowers about the 

HECM product. Inspector General Montoya stated: 

‘‘We don’t believe that counselors are doing as good a job 

as they should be in just really identifying for these seniors the loan they are getting into . . . they are not really 

instructed on how much and how expensive it would be 

. . . not instructed on the taxes and insurance, homeowners fees that will need to be paid . . . There’s a lot of 

other things that we think we can work with FHA to do 

to tighten up the knowledge that these seniors need before 

they take this product.’’ 

While the Committee understands that HUD has made improvements to HECM counseling, there is more that can be done. The 

Committee directs the Office of Housing Counseling to work with 

HUD’s OIG on improvements to HECM counseling, with a particular focus on ensuring that spouses understand the details of a 

HECM loan and the financial obligations associated with the product. The Committee also expects that of the funds provided for 

training, a portion will be directed to improving the skills and 

knowledge of HECM counselors. 
133 

OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $1,297,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 21,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 21,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides amendment funding for housing assisted 

under a variety of HUD housing programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,000,000 for 

HUD-assisted, State-aided, noninsured rental housing projects, 

consistent with the budget request. In fiscal year 2013, $1,297,000 

was provided for this purpose. The Committee notes that language 

is included in the bill that will allow the conversion of these 

projects to section 8, at no additional cost. The Committee hopes 

that the conversion of these projects, through the Rental Assistance 

Demonstration, will lead to the eventual elimination of these outdated programs. 

RENT SUPPLEMENT

(INCLUDES A RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2013 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... ¥$3,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥3,500,000 

The Committee recommends a rescission of $3,500,000 of balances from section 236 payments to State-aided, noninsured 

projects, which is consistent with the budget request. The Committee did not rescind balances from this account in fiscal year 

2013. 

MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $6,487,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 7,530,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,530,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 

Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 

Improvement Act of 2000, authorizes the Secretary to establish 

Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 

the construction, design, and performance of manufactured homes. 

All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs of administering the act. 
134 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,530,000 to support the manufactured housing standards programs, of which up to $6,530,000 is expected to be derived from fees collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund account and not more than 

$1,000,000 shall be available from the General Fund of the Treasury. The total amount recommended is equal to the budget request 

and $1,043,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

The Committee continues language allowing the Department to 

collect fees from program participants for the dispute resolution 

and installment programs mandated by the Manufactured Housing 

Improvement Act of 2000. These fees are to be deposited into the 

Trust Fund and may be used to support the manufactured housing 

standards programs subject to the overall cap placed on the account. The Committee expects the Department to move forward 

with this authority. 

The Committee notes that carryover in the program will allow 

HUD to continue its current activities within the amount provided. 

However, the Committee recognizes that manufactured housing 

production has declined substantially since peak industry production in 1998, and continues to decline due to a variety of factors. 

Expenditures supporting the programs should reflect and correspond with this decline, which has specifically reduced the number of inspections and inspection hours required for new units. 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation on direct loans Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Administrative contract expenses 

Appropriations, 2013 ......................................................... $50,000,000 $400,000,000,000 1 $206,586,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ...................................................... 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 127,000,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................. 50,000,000 400,000,000,000 198,500,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation on direct 

loans 

Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2013 1 ............................................................................................ $20,000,000 $25,000,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 1 ......................................................................................... 20,000,000 30,000,000,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ................................................................................. 20,000,000 30,000,000,000 

1 Administrative expenses for GSR are funded within the Office of Housing. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the 

mortgage and loan insurance activity of HUD mortgage/loan insurance programs. These include the mutual mortgage insurance 

[MMI] fund, cooperative management housing insurance [CMHI] 

fund, general insurance [GI] fund, and the special risk insurance 

[SRI] fund. For presentation and accounting control purposes, these 

are divided into two sets of accounts based on shared characteris-
135 

tics. The unsubsidized insurance programs of the mutual mortgage 

insurance fund and the cooperative management housing insurance 

fund constitute one set; and the general risk insurance and special 

risk insurance funds, which are partially composed of subsidized 

programs, make up the other. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has included the following amounts for the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program account: a limitation on guaranteed loans of $400,000,000,000; a limitation on direct loans of 

$20,000,000; and $198,500,000 for administrative contract expenses, of which up to $71,500,000 may be transferred to the Information Technology Fund to be used for the maintenance of FHA information technology systems. 

For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends 

$30,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans and a limitation on direct loans of $20,000,000. 

Since its inception in 1934, FHA has played a critical role in 

meeting the demands of borrowers that the private market could 

not, creating housing products that have insured over 34 million 

homes. 

When private capital froze during the recent housing crisis, 

FHA’s presence in the housing market expanded dramatically. 

FHA provided mortgage insurance to eligible first time homebuyers, as well as existing homeowners seeking to refinance, enabling millions of Americans to take advantage of low-interest rates 

and affordable home prices. Yet, this increased role comes with its 

own risks, as FHA’s Mutual Mortgage Insurance [MMI] Fund has 

sustained significant losses in recent years. Given the conditions in 

the housing market, the losses to the fund are not surprising, but 

they are a serious concern since the losses are draining FHA’s reserves. 

Beginning in 2010, the capital reserve account fell below the 2 

percent ratio mandated by Congress. Moreover, the most recent actuarial report estimates the capital reserve account will be depleted. The poor condition of the Fund was reinforced by the President’s budget, which estimates that $943,000,000 may be needed 

from Treasury in 2013 to ensure sufficient resources are available 

to cover expected losses to the MMI Fund. This would represent 

the first time the Fund would require an infusion of funds from 

Treasury, although the need for such a transfer will not come until 

the end of fiscal year 2013. 

In examining the condition of the Fund, it is clear that Home Equity Conversion Mortgages [HECM] are a driving force behind 

FHA’s financial condition, representing a disproportionate share of 

FHA’s losses. The Administration has proposed changes to HECM 

that the OIG agrees will address many of the problems with the 

current product. In order to expedite these changes, HUD has also 

asked for authority to make changes via a mortgagee letter. The 

Committee understands the urgency of making these changes, as 

well as the amount of time it takes to do a rulemaking. At the 

same time, the Committee is concerned that FHA has not moved 

with sufficient speed to change the program using its current authority, even as it pursued legislative changes. 
136 

Despite the concerns with the pace of reform to HECM, the Committee acknowledges that HUD has implemented significant reforms to FHA over the last few years that have increased the solvency of the Fund. These steps include raising premiums five 

times, tightening lending standards, and increasing down payment 

requirements for riskier mortgages. These important changes have 

helped put FHA on a stronger footing, and enabled FHA to avoid 

an expected draw on Treasury funds in fiscal year 2012. 

FHA has also proposed additional reforms to strengthen enforcement that require Congressional action. Many of these reforms 

were discussed in a hearing before the Committee, and have the 

support of HUD’s IG, who also suggested other improvements to 

the program. The Committee encourages FHA to continue to work 

with the OIG to further strengthen oversight of its portfolio and 

with Congress to enact important reforms. 

The Committee is aware of several local governments exploring 

the idea of partnering with private investors and using eminent domain authority to take title to certain mortgages—not the underlying real property—and pay the mortgage holders ‘‘fair market 

value.’’ The government and investors would then write down the 

loan principal so that distressed homeowners could lower their 

monthly payments and begin to rebuild equity in their homes. With 

the principal reduced the borrower would likely then be able to refinance into an FHA loan, which could then be securitized by Government National Mortgage Association. Although this concept is 

still in its infancy and no jurisdiction has yet implemented such a 

proposal, the Committee will continue to monitor developments in 

this area, and expects FHA to keep the Committee informed of any 

policies it will propose if such a program is implemented. 

Multifamily Housing.—The Committee recommendation includes 

a $5,000,000,000 increase in the General and Special Risk Insurance Fund’s commitment authority, which insures multifamily and 

healthcare facilities. The Committee notes that the increase in volume has been driven largely by an increase in refinancing activities, and that many of the properties are already insured by FHA. 

As a result of refinancing at a lower interest rate, properties are 

in a better financial position, helping to minimize FHA’s risk. The 

Committee recognizes the important role that FHA is playing to 

support these projects, which provide resources for needed apartment buildings and healthcare facilities, while also creating jobs in 

the private market. 

While FHA’s increased role does raise the potential for risk, the 

Committee notes that FHA has increased premiums for its multifamily programs. It also recently completed an assessment of its 

entire portfolio to assess areas of greatest risk. As a result, FHA 

can target its oversight to properties that represent the greatest 

risk to the Fund. 
137 

GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Limitation on 

personnel, 

compensation and 

administrative 

expenses 

Appropriations, 2013 ............................................................................................... $500,000,000,000 1 $19,461,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................................... 500,000,000,000 21,200,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................................... 500,000,000,000 21,200,000 

1 Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Government National Mortgage Association [Ginnie Mae], 

through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees privately issued securities backed by pools of Government-guaranteed 

mortgages. Ginnie Mae is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United States within the Department. Its powers are 

prescribed generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as 

amended. Ginnie Mae is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to 

guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that are based on and backed by a trust, or pool, composed of 

mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the FHA, the Rural 

Housing Service, or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ginnie 

Mae’s guarantee of mortgage-backed securities is backed by the full 

faith and credit of the United States. This account also funds all 

salaries and benefits funding to support Ginnie Mae. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments 

on mortgage-backed securities of $500,000,000,000. This level is the 

same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

The bill allows Ginnie Mae to use $21,200,000 for salaries and expenses. This is $1,739,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted 

level and equal to the President’s request. 

Since the near collapse of the private mortgage market, homeowners have relied on Federal programs, such as FHA, to purchase 

or refinance homes. Given that Ginnie Mae serves as a secondary 

market for FHA, its market share has also grown dramatically; 

from just 5 percent in 2007 to over 23 percent at the end of fiscal 

year 2013. The HUD Inspector General has raised concerns about 

Ginnie Mae’s focus on risk, particularly its ability to identify fraudulent lenders. The Committee notes that the leadership at Ginnie 

Mae has taken positive steps to address these concerns, including 

undertaking a multiyear staffing initiative designed to increase its 

capacity to monitor risk. The Committee recommendation supports 

the Administration’s request to continue implementation of this 

plan to enhance Ginnie Mae’s oversight capacity. In particular, the 

request and the Committee recommendation, support additional 

personnel to increase on and offsite monitoring of the increasing 

number of Ginnie Mae issuers, as well as increased personnel for 

the Office of Enterprise Risk and the Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer. The Committee supports Ginnie Mae’s efforts to address 
138 

concerns raised by both GAO and the Office of the Inspector General [OIG] by targeting areas of need within the organization. The 

Committee expects Ginnie Mae to work closely with the OIG to 

continue to implement measures that will strengthen risk management practices. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $45,908,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 50,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 48,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as 

amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development to undertake programs of research, evaluation, 

and reports relating to the Department’s mission and programs. 

These functions are carried out internally and through grants and 

contracts with industry, nonprofit research organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements with State and local 

governments and other Federal agencies. The research programs 

seek ways to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of 

HUD programs and to identify methods to achieve cost reductions. 

Additionally, this appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation 

and monitoring activities and to conduct housing surveys. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $48,000,000 for 

research, technology, and community development activities in fiscal year 2014. This level is $2,092,000 more than the fiscal year 

2013 enacted level and $2,000,000 less than the budget request. 

The recommendation does not include funding for the Doctoral Dissertation Research Program. 

The Committee recommendation includes additional funding to 

support the market surveys that are integral to HUD’s ability to 

understand its own programs and also help public and private entities understand housing conditions in the U.S. 

The Committee also continues language that allows HUD to 

enter into cooperative agreements, which allows the Office of Policy 

Development and Research to undertake research in cooperation 

with other groups. The six cooperative agreements that have been 

signed under this authority have leveraged $2 for every dollar of 

Federal investment. The Committee encourages HUD to continue 

to maximize this authority. 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $70,705,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 71,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 70,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 
139 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding for 

both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the Fair 

Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP]. 

The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local 

agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as 

amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage services. The 

major objective of the program is to assure prompt and effective 

processing of title VIII complaints with appropriate remedies for 

complaints by State and local fair housing agencies. 

The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by section 

561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, as 

amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair housing opportunities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $70,000,000 for 

the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. This amount is 

$1,000,000 less than the budget request and $705,000 less than the 

2013 enacted level. Of the amounts provided, $24,000,000 is for 

FHAP; $1,600,000 is for the National Fair Housing Training Academy; and $44,100,000 is for FHIP. The bill also includes $300,000 

for the creation, promotion, and dissemination of translated materials that support the assistance of persons with limited English 

proficiency. 

The Committee supports the efforts of HUD and its local partners to prevent and combat housing discrimination. It is clear from 

HUD’s fiscal year 2010 Annual Report on Fair Housing that Americans continue to experience housing discrimination, most often 

based on disability and race. The funding provided through the 

FHAP and FHIP programs helps HUD and local agencies investigate and work to resolve potential fair housing violations. 

The Committee notes that through the support of a FHIP grant, 

the National Fair Housing Alliance and its affiliates conducted research on the management and marketing of Real Estate Owned 

[REO] properties in various neighborhoods. The report resulting 

from this work included evidence that banks’ maintenance and 

marketing of REO properties in minority neighborhoods was inferior to such activities in predominantly white neighborhoods. As a 

result of this work, and additional work of HUD’s Office of Fair 

Housing and Equal Opportunity, Wells Fargo recently agreed to invest $39,000,000 in 45 affected neighborhoods. This agreement underscores the important work fair housing organizations play in ensuring fair and equal treatment of all persons. 
140 

OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $119,760,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 120,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 120,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 

established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction 

Act, under which HUD is authorized to make grants to States, localities, and Native American tribes to conduct lead-based paint 

hazard reduction and abatement activities in private, low-income 

housing. Lead poisoning is a significant environmental health hazard, particularly for young children and pregnant women, and can 

result in neurological damage, learning disabilities, and impaired 

growth. The Healthy Homes Program, authorized under sections 

501 and 502 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 

(12 U.S.C. 1701z–1 and 1701z–2), provides grants to remediate 

housing hazards that have been scientifically shown to negatively 

impact occupant health and safety. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $120,000,000 for 

lead-based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2014, of which $25,000,000 is for the Healthy Homes Initiative. This amount is equal to the President’s budget request and 

$240,000 more than the amount available in fiscal year 2013. Of 

this amount, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 

$45,000,000 to the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, which was established in fiscal year 2003 to focus on major urban areas where 

children are disproportionately at risk for lead poisoning. 

Lead Level of Concern Adjustment for Children.—Exposure to 

lead-based paint can have serious health effects for both children 

and adults, but children are the most susceptible to permanent cognitive damage. Based upon extensive research, the Centers for Disease Control [CDC] recently redefined the level at which children 

are considered to have too much lead in their bodies from 10 

micrograms to 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood in a child 

under the age of 6. This has increased the number of children considered to have excessive lead content from less than 100,000 to 

500,000. Seventy percent of lead poisonings are due to dust exposure from lead paint in the home and are preventable. According 

to the 2009 American Housing Survey, 23 million housing units 

have lead-based paint hazards, of which 1.1 million are low-income 

households with one or more children. Low-income households are 

more likely to lack the resources for preventative maintenance and 

remediation of lead-based paint hazards. Therefore, this is the population that the program is designed to target. The funding level 

recommended by the Committee will remediate 9,000 housing units 

in fiscal year 2014. 

Healthy Homes Strategic Plan.—The Office of Healthy Homes 

and Lead Hazard Control issued a long-awaited strategic plan for 

healthy homes, ‘‘Advancing Healthy Housing: A Strategy for Ac-
141 

tion,’’ in 2013. The plan represents a collaborative effort between 

HUD, CDC, the Department of Health and Human Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of Labor, and the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology to leverage resources to remedy unsafe and unsanitary 

housing conditions that are injurious to the health and safety of 

low-income households. Significant health concerns identified by 

the working group include mold, radon, pests, and unintentional injury. According to the strategic plan, mold and radon appear to be 

the most significant health hazards. Indoor allergens such as mold 

are a trigger for the development of asthma in children. Asthma is 

one of the leading chronic childhood diseases in the United States. 

It is estimated that 39 percent of doctor-diagnosed asthma in children less than 6 years of age could be prevented with the elimination of residential hazards. Further, radon is believed to be the 

leading cause of lung cancer among nonsmokers, causing 21,000 

deaths annually. Approximately 6.8 million homes have significant 

radon exposure above the EPA action level. While the Committee 

supports the remediation of health hazards in homes, it is important to target the limited resources available to those health issues 

where the greatest benefit to at-risk populations can be achieved. 

The Committee directs HUD to provide an implementation plan addressing costs, benefits, and performance measures associated to 

addressing these health hazards to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations by September 30, 2014. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... $198,637,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 285,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 210,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2This account was previously called ‘‘Working Capital Fund’’. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Information Technology Fund finances the information technology [IT] systems that support departmental programs and operations, including FHA Mortgage Insurance, housing assistance and 

grant programs, as well as core financial and general operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $210,000,000 for 

the Information Technology Fund for fiscal year 2014, which is 

$75,000,000 less than the budget request. This amount is 

$11,363,000 more than the amount provided for similar activities 

in fiscal year 2013 under the ‘‘Working Capital Fund’’. This fund 

is also supported by a transfer of $71,500,000 from FHA’s Mutual 

Mortgage Insurance Fund. The Committee directs HUD to include 

the amount of funding it is requesting by project and activity in its 

fiscal year 2015 congressional justification. 

The age of HUD’s technology hampers its ability to effectively 

manage its programs. In testimony before the Committee, HUD’s 

inspector general echoed this concern when he discussed FHA’s 

aging information technology [IT] infrastructure. He noted that 
142 

FHA’s outdated systems, which are 15–30 years old, are susceptible 

to losing data and can be vulnerable to manipulation. To address 

this weakness, the Committee recommendation includes at least 

$45,050,000 for development, modernization and enhancement 

projects, which will allow HUD to continue to move from its antiquated systems to modern technology. 

GAO Oversight.—Since 2010, the Committee has required HUD 

to submit an expenditure plan outlining its IT modernization 

projects before it could spend a portion of its IT funding. The plans 

were reviewed by GAO to determine if they satisfied the statutory 

requirements. Based on reports and briefings from GAO over the 

past few years, the Committee recognizes the progress HUD has 

made in its IT modernization planning efforts, and the focus must 

now be on its implementation of the plans and execution of the 

projects. Therefore, the Committee recommendation modifies the 

contents of the plan HUD is required to submit to the Committee 

and GAO to provide: (1) details regarding HUD’s portfolio of IT investments; and (2) the status of the Department’s efforts in applying IT management controls. This plan may also include additional 

information regarding the extent to which IT management controls 

have been applied to the projects associated with each IT investment in the Department’s portfolio. The Committee emphasizes the 

importance of pursuing a strategic approach as HUD continues to 

improve its IT management. To this end, in order to monitor the 

Department’s progress, the Committee instructed GAO in 2012 to 

conduct several reviews. In 2013, GAO completed a review of the 

department’s IT project management practices. The Committee affirms its direction to GAO to also evaluate HUD’s institutionalization of governance and cost estimating practices. In particular, the 

Committee remains interested in any cost savings or operational efficiencies that have resulted (or may result) from the Department’s 

improvement efforts. 

CORE Financial Systems.—The Committee notes that following 

challenges with HUD’s Integrated Financial Management Improvement Project [HIFMIP], HUD has undertaken an initiative to enter 

into a shared services contract with the Bureau of Public Debt for 

its financial systems. The Committee is closely following this 

project because it is focused on ensuring that HUD has a sound financial system. The Department has been providing the Committees on Appropriations with regular updates on this project, which 

the Committee expects to continue in fiscal year 2014. The Committee also urges HUD to continue to consult with the OIG as it 

continues this project. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $123,752,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 127,672,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 127,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation will finance all salaries and related expenses 

associated with the operation of the Office of the Inspector General 

[OIG]. 
143 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $127,000,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. The amount of funding is 

$3,248,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and 

$672,000 less than the President’s request. 

The Committee recommendation supports the OIG’s request to 

increases resources dedicated to creating a more robust Inspections 

and Evaluation [I&E] Unit, expanding its data mining and predictive analytics, enhancing its civil fraud capacity, and improving 

its procurement and contract management oversight effort. 

The Committee is particularly interested in the OIG’s effort to 

expand the work of the I&E unit, which is expected to provide 

more real-time evaluations and recommendations. The Committee 

notes that the OIG often relies upon its older work, which doesn’t 

always reflect recent actions or program changes. To assist in better understanding the status of recommendations, the Committee 

directs the OIG to provide a status of recommendations on its Web 

site, so that it is clear what actions have been taken to address the 

issues identified. 

The Committee hopes to work with the OIG on ways to improve 

HUD policies and programs. This year, the HUD IG testified before 

the Committee at its hearing on the Federal Housing Administration, and was able to speak to policy changes that could strengthen 

HUD’s oversight of its portfolio. While this type of work may not 

have a monetary amount associated with it, on which the OIG frequently evaluates its own performance, this type of work informs 

and benefits the Committee’s work. The Committee expects the 

OIG to place more emphasis on this kind of systemic evaluation of 

HUD programs, based on audits and investigations, that result in 

specific recommendations on how programs can be improved. To 

help the Committee better understand HUD’s challenges, the Committee directs the OIG to submit a report to the House and Senate 

Committee on Appropriations with a list of management challenges 

facing the Department, including actions the administration and 

Congress can take to improve HUD’s performance concurrent with 

its budget submission. 

TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $49,900,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 2 ......................................................................... 80,000,000 

Committee recommendation 2 ............................................................... 60,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2This 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. 
144 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes up to $60,000,000 for the Transformation Initiative [TI], which will be funded through transfers of 

up to 0.5 percent from HUD programs, as requested. In fiscal year 

2013, $49,900,000 was provided as a direct appropriation. 

In fiscal year 2010, the administration launched TI to improve 

the operations and capacity of HUD. TI funds research and demonstrations to better equip HUD to address the Nation’s housing 

needs. In addition to improving HUD’s own operations, TI also includes funding to improve the capacity and performance of its 

grantees through technical assistance [TA]. The Committee believes that the funding provided will help HUD develop evidencebased policies and improve program outcomes. 

Within the reduced level of funding provided, the Committee will 

allow HUD to determine the appropriate use of funding among the 

requested projects. However, the Committee continues to emphasize the importance of fully funding projects. The Committee expects the following projects be adequately funded: Impact of REO 

Properties on Neighborhoods; Improving HUD Measures of Housing Cost Inflation; Assessing Housing Quality in the HCV program; 

Understanding Rapid Re-housing Models and Outcomes for the 

Homeless; Effect of Housing Assistance Over Time; Advancing Utility Allowance Modeling for HUD Housing Programs; Project-based 

Rental Assistance Transfer Authority Demonstration; Seniors and 

Supportive Services Demonstration; and Section 811 Project Rental 

Assistance Demonstration Evaluation. 

The recommendation does not include funding for the Natural 

Experiments Grant Program or Demonstration and Related Small 

Grants. 

In addition to the projects proposed in the budget, the Committee 

recommends $500,000 for an evaluation of the ROSS program, and 

at least $1,000,000 for an evaluation of the pilot for homeless or 

at risk veterans living on tribal reservations or in Indian areas 

modeled after HUD–VASH. 

The Committee also continues to support technical assistance 

targeted at improving outcomes. Of the amount provided, the Committee recommends at least $2,000,000 for technical assistance for 

public housing authorities and residents to help develop sustainable service funding models and improve service delivery. In addition, at least $3,000,000 must be provided to support training for 

public housing authorities on finance and governance. Finally, at 

least $1,000,000 is for culturally appropriate technical assistance to 

support implementation of the housing plus services model on reservations and in Indian areas as part of the HUD–VASH pilot. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends administrative provisions. A brief 

description follows. 

SEC. 201. This section promotes the refinancing of certain housing bonds. 

SEC. 202. This section clarifies a limitation on the use of funds 

under the Fair Housing Act. 
145 

SEC. 203. This section extends sections 203 and 209 of the Fiscal 

Year 2012 Appropriations Act that clarifies the allocation of 

HOPWA funding for fiscal year 2006 and beyond. 

SEC. 204. This section requires HUD to award funds on a competitive basis unless otherwise provided. 

SEC. 205. This section allows funds to be used to reimburse GSEs 

and other Federal entities for various administrative expenses. 

SEC. 206. This section limits HUD spending to amounts set out 

in the budget justification. 

SEC. 207. This section clarifies expenditure authority for entities 

subject to the Government Corporation Control Act. 

SEC. 208. This section requires quarterly reports on all uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD programs. 

SEC. 209. This section requires public housing authorities to set 

flat rents at levels no lower than 80 percent of the fair market 

rent, except that PHAs will have to phase-in flat rent increases as 

necessary to ensure that a family’s existing rental payment does 

not increase by more than 35 percent. 

SEC. 210. This section changes the definition of a PHA that operates public housing to include a consortion of PHAs. 

SEC. 211. This section exempts Los Angeles County, Alaska, 

Iowa, and Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA resident on the board of directors for fiscal year 2014. Instead, the public housing agencies in these States are required to establish advisory boards that include public housing tenants and section 8 recipients. 

SEC. 212. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer of 

existing project-based subsidies and liabilities from obsolete housing to housing that better meets the needs of the assisted tenants. 

SEC. 213. This section exempts GNMA from certain requirements 

of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. 

SEC. 214. This section reforms certain section 8 rent calculations 

as related to athletic scholarships. 

SEC. 215. This section provides allocation requirements for Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block 

Grant program. 

SEC. 216. This section eliminates a cap on Home Equity Conversion Mortgages for fiscal year 2014. 

SEC. 217. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8 assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing. 

SEC. 218. This section streamlines the inspection of units and allows them to use alternative Federal inspection standards to reduce duplication and focus more on risk-based inspections. 

SEC. 219. This section allows the recipient of a section 202 grant 

to establish a single-asset nonprofit entity to own the project and 

may lend grant funds to such entity. 

SEC. 220. This section clarifies the use of the 108 loan guaranteed program for nonentitlement communities. 

SEC. 221. This section allows public housing authorities with less 

than 400 units to be exempt from management requirements in the 

operating fund rule. 

SEC. 222. This section restricts the Secretary from imposing any 

requirement or guideline relating to asset management that re-
146 

stricts or limits the use of capital funds for central office costs, up 

to the limit established in QWHRA. 

SEC. 223. This section requires allotment holders to meet certain 

criteria of the CFO. 

SEC. 224. This section limits attorney fees. 

SEC. 225. The section modifies the NOFA process to include the 

Internet. 

SEC. 226. This section establishes reprogramming and reallocation requirements within HUD’s salaries and expenses accounts. 

SEC. 227. This section requires HUD to take certain actions 

against owners receiving rental subsidies that do not maintain safe 

properties. 

SEC. 228. This section allows the Disaster Housing Assistance 

Programs to be considered HUD programs for the purpose of income verification and matching. 

SEC. 229. This section places limits on PHA compensation. 

SEC. 230. This section continues to allow critical access hospitals 

to be insured under section 242 of the National Housing Act. 

SEC. 231. This section requires the Secretary to report quarterly 

on the status of all project-based section 8 housing. 

SEC. 232. This section makes changes to the HOME Investment 

Partnership program. 

SEC. 233. This section extends the HOPE VI program until September 30, 2014. 

SEC. 234. This section allows the Secretary to transfer funding 

from salaries and expenses accounts to the ‘‘Information Technology Fund’’ to support technology improvements. 

SEC. 235. This section changes the frequency of submitting reports to the Committees on Appropriations on actions related to 

disaster supplementals from quarterly to annually. 

SEC. 236. This section eliminates an unnecessary transfer from 

the Rental Housing Assistance Fund to the Flexible Subsidy Fund. 

SEC. 237. This section modifies the requirements for low-income 

targeting to better target rental assistance to the working poor. 

SEC. 238. This section modifies the Rental Assistance Demonstration included in the fiscal year 2012 bill. 

SEC. 239. This section requires the Secretary to provide the Committee with advance notification before discretionary awards are 

made. 

SEC. 240. This section expands the authority to facilitate section 

202 operating assistance-only contracts to fund supportive housing 

units for the elderly that is aligned with State healthcare priorities. 

SEC. 241. This section modifies administrative oversight of the 

SHOP program. 

SEC. 242. This section modifies utility allowances to be consistent 

with the size of the unit for which a family qualifies, not the size 

of the unit leased. 

SEC. 243. This section allows the Secretary to publish Fair Market Rents on the Internet without having to publish them in the 

Federal Register. 
(147) 

TITLE III 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

ACCESS BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $7,385,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 7,448,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,448,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Access Board (formerly known as the Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance Board) was established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board is responsible for developing guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Architectural Barriers Act, and the Telecommunications Act. These guidelines ensure that buildings and facilities, 

transportation vehicles, and telecommunications equipment covered 

by these laws are readily accessible to and usable by people with 

disabilities. The Board is also responsible for developing standards 

under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act for accessible electronic 

and information technology used by Federal agencies, and for medical diagnostic equipment under section 510 of the Rehabilitation 

Act. The Access Board also enforces the Architectural Barriers Act. 

In addition, the Board provides training and technical assistance 

on the guidelines and standards it develops to Government agencies, public and private organizations, individuals and businesses 

on the removal of accessibility barriers. 

In 2002, the Access Board was given additional responsibilities 

under the Help America Vote Act. The Board serves on the Board 

of Advisors and the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, 

which helps the Election Assistance Commission develop voluntary 

guidelines and guidance for voting systems, including accessibility 

for people with disabilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,448,000 for the operations of the 

Access Board. This level of funding is $63,000 more than the 2013 

enacted level and equal to the President’s fiscal year 2014 request. 
148 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $24,052,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 25,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 24,669,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is an independent regulatory agency which administers the Shipping Act of 1984 (Public 

Law 98–237), as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 

1998 (Public Law 105–258); section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act 

of 1920 (41 Stat. 998); the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 

(Public Law 100–418); and Public Law 89–777. 

FMC’s mission is to foster a fair, efficient, and reliable international ocean transportation system and to protect the public from 

unfair and deceptive practices. To accomplish this mission, FMC 

regulates the international waterborne commerce of the United 

States. In addition, FMC has responsibility for licensing and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and assuring that vessel 

owners or operators establish financial responsibility to pay judgments for death or injury to passengers, or nonperformance of a 

cruise, on voyages from U.S. ports. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $24,669,000 for the salaries and expenses of the FMC for fiscal year 2014. This amount is $331,000 

less than the budget request and $617,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2013 enacted level. The request for additional funding for 

travel and consulting is denied. 

The Committee commends FMC’s continued efforts to assist 

American exporters to resolve supply chain disruptions due to insufficient domestic container supply. Facilitating the accessibility of 

U.S. exports to foreign markets is a key factor in the Nation’s economic recovery. The Committee also supports FMC’s continued efforts to protect consumers from potentially unlawful, unfair, or deceptive ocean transportation practices related to the movement of 

household goods or personal property in international oceanborne 

trade. 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $20,459,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 25,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 21,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Inspector General for Amtrak was created by the 

Inspector General Act Amendment of 1988. The Act recognized Am-
149 

trak as a ‘‘designated Federal entity’’ and required the railroad to 

establish an independent and objective unit to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of Amtrak; recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in Amtrak, and prevent and detect fraud and abuse; and to provide a means for keeping the Amtrak leadership and the Congress fully informed about problems in 

Amtrak operations and the corporation’s progress in making corrective action. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $21,000,000 for the Amtrak Office of 

Inspector General [OIG]. This funding level is $4,300,000 less than 

the budget request and $541,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The Committee retains language that requires the Amtrak OIG to submit a budget request in similar format and substance to those submitted by other executive agencies in the Federal Government. 

The Committee commends the progress the OIG has made to implement an appropriate separation of duties, financial systems and 

hiring practices. The Committee continues to direct the OIG to report on its progress in addressing the recommendations of the 

Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency and the 

recommendations of the National Academy of Public Administrators in its semi-annual report. 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $102,195,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 103,027,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 103,027,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Initially established along with the Department of Transportation, the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent Federal 

agency. The board is charged by Congress with investigating every 

civil aviation accident in the United States as well as significant 

accidents in the other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, 

marine, and pipeline—and issuing safety recommendations aimed 

at preventing future accidents. Although it has always operated 

independently, NTSB relied on DOT for funding and administrative support until the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Public 

Law 93–633) severed all ties between the two organizations starting in 1975. 

In addition to its investigatory duties, NTSB is responsible for 

maintaining the Government’s database of civil aviation accidents 

and also conducts special studies of transportation safety issues of 

national significance. Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international treaties, NTSB supplies investigators to serve 

as U.S. accredited representatives for aviation accidents overseas 

involving U.S.-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or major 
150 

components of U.S. manufacture. NTSB also serves as the ‘‘court 

of appeals’’ for any airman, mechanic, or mariner whenever certificate action is taken by the Federal Aviation Administration or the 

U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are assessed by FAA. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $103,027,000 for the National 

Transportation Safety Board, which is equal to the budget request 

and $832,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The 

Committee has also continued to include language that allows 

NTSB to make payments on its lease for the NTSB training facility 

with funding provided in the bill. 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $214,869,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 204,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 215,300,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by the 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public Law 

95–557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation now operates under the trade name, ‘‘NeighborWorks America.’’ NeighborWorks America helps local communities establish efficient and effective partnerships between residents and representatives of the public and private sectors. These partnership-based 

organizations are independent, tax-exempt, nonprofit entities and 

are frequently known as Neighborhood Housing Services or mutual 

housing associations. 

Collectively, these organizations are known as the 

NeighborWorks network. Nationally, 235 NeighborWorks organizations serve nearly 3,000 urban, suburban, and rural communities 

in 49 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $215,300,000 for 

the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation or NeighborWorks, for 

fiscal year 2014. This amount is $11,200,000 more than the budget 

request and $431,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

The Committee has included $138,300,000 to support 

NeighborWorks core programs, and continues to support the setaside of $5,000,000 for the multifamily rental housing initiative, 

which has been successful in developing innovative approaches to 

producing mixed-income affordable housing throughout the Nation. 

The Committee directs NeighborWorks to provide a status report 

on this initiative in its fiscal year 2015 budget justification. 

Housing Counseling Assistance.—The Committee has included 

$77,000,000 to continue the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program [NFMC] initiated by Congress in fiscal year 2008. 
151 

NFMC is not a permanent program, and while the number of foreclosures have fallen from their peak in recent months, the number 

remains elevated. According to Lender Processing Services’ Mortgage Monitor Report for April 2013, ‘‘While delinquencies are resolving, foreclosure inventories are still significantly higher than 

pre-crisis across all products’’. Therefore the Committee believes resources are still warranted to assist families facing foreclosure. 

According to NeighborWorks’ December 2012 Congressional report, NFMC has helped support counseling for over 1,450,000 borrowers. Moreover, the outcomes associated with NFMC demonstrate the impact it is having on people’s lives. According to an 

independent evaluation of the program conducted by the Urban Institute issued in December 2011, NFMC-assisted homeowners were 

89 percent more likely to receive a loan modification cure on the 

first attempt than noncounseled homeowners. The report also 

found that 9 months after receiving a modification, counseled 

homeowners were 67 times more likely to remain current on their 

mortgage. The Urban Institute also estimated a counseling cost 

benefit ratio of 2.4. 

Equity Sharing.—The Committee notes that equity sharing models have proven to be successful in helping first-time homeowners 

purchase a home, while preserving the long-term affordability of 

housing. NeighborWorks organizations across the country have 

been utilizing various equity sharing models, including programs 

that try to align the need for seniors to transition to assisted-housing with the needs of those trying to buy their first home. As the 

housing market begins to recover, equity sharing is a useful tool to 

help maintain housing affordability. The Committee encourages 

NeighborWorks to continue to fund these programs and to promote 

their use by its organizations. 

Mortgage Rescue Scams.—Since 2009, NeighborWorks has been 

working to raise awareness of mortgage rescue scams and help vulnerable homeowners access legitimate forms of assistance. This 

campaign targets at-risk communities and populations through 

public service announcements, public media and the Internet. 

NeighborWorks is working with other partners, such as the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission to stop rescue 

scams. The Committee expects NeighborWorks to continue working 

with its partners to address this important issue. 

Rural Areas.—The Committee also continues to support 

Neighborworks’ efforts to build capacity in rural areas. The Committee urges the Corporation to continue these efforts. 

UNITED STATES INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $3,293,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 3,595,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,595,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is an 

independent agency created by the McKinney-Vento Homeless As-
152 

sistance Act of 1987 to coordinate and direct the multiple efforts of 

Federal agencies and other designated groups. The Council was authorized to review Federal programs that assist homeless persons 

and to take necessary actions to reduce duplication. The Council 

can recommend improvements in programs and activities conducted by Federal, State, and local government, as well as local 

volunteer organizations. The Council consists of the heads of 19 

Federal agencies, including the Departments of Housing and Urban 

Development, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Labor, and Transportation; 

and other entities as deemed appropriate. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,595,000 for 

the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [USICH]. 

This amount is equal to the budget request and $302,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. 

USICH supports Federal collaboration and implementation of the 

Federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. The Council’s work on such issues as establishing common definitions of 

homelessness across programs and consolidating Federal data is 

helping to breakdown silos and increase Federal collaboration. Its 

work was recognized by GAO in its February 2012 report on ways 

to reduce duplication, overlap, and fragmentation in the Federal 

Government. The Committee recommendation extends USICH’s authorization to 2020, consistent with timing of goals contained in its 

plan. 
(153) 

TITLE IV 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS ACT 

Section 401 requires pay raises to be absorbed within appropriated levels in this act or previous appropriations acts. 

Section 402 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-Federal 

parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this act. 

Section 403 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal year 

and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so provided herein. 

Section 404 limits expenditures for consulting service through 

procurement contracts where such expenditures are a matter of 

public record and available for public inspection. 

Section 405 authorizes the reprogramming of funds and specifies 

the reprogramming procedures for agencies funded by this act. 

Section 406 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances may 

remain available for certain purposes. 

Section 407 requires departments and agencies under this act to 

report information regarding all sole-source contracts. 

Section 408 prohibits the use of funds for employee training unless such training bears directly upon the performance of official 

duties. 

Section 409 prohibits the use of funds for eminent domain unless 

such taking is employed for public use. 

Section 410 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred without 

express authority. 

Section 411 protects employment rights of Federal employees 

who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the Armed 

Forces. 

Section 412 prohibits the use of funds for activities not in compliance with the Buy American Act. 

Section 413 prohibits funding for any person or entity convicted 

of violating the Buy American Act. 

Section 414 prohibits funds for first-class airline accommodation 

in contravention of section 301–10.122 and 301–10.123 of title 41 

CFR. 

Section 415 prohibits funds in this act or any prior act for going 

to the group ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied 

organizations. 

Section 416 restricts funds in this act from being used to enter 

into contracts with corporations that have recently been convicted 

of a felony criminal violation. 

Section 417 restricts funds in this act from being used to enter 

into contracts with corporations that have outstanding unpaid Federal tax liabilities for which all judicial or administrative remedies 

have been exhausted. 
154 

Section 418 prohibits funds from being used to purchase light 

bulbs for an office building unless, to the extent practicable, the 

light bulb has an Energy Star or Federal Energy Management Program designation. 

Section 419 requires all agencies and departments funded in this 

act to report their vehicle fleet inventory and associated costs to 

Congress at the end of fiscal year 2013. 

Section 420 requires agencies funded in this act to report to their 

inspector general on the costs and other details of conferences held 

during fiscal year 2014. 

Section 421 restricts the number of employees agencies funded in 

this act may send to international conferences. 

øSection 422 makes special allowances for technical differences 

in estimates of discretionary new budget authority.¿ 
(155) 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to 

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is 

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty 

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate 

during that session.’’ 

The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not covered 

under this rule, but reports this information in the spirit of full disclosure. 

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2014: 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration: 

Bridges in Critical Corridors 

Federal Railroad Administration 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Rental Assistance: 

Rental Assistance Demonstration 

Section 8 Contract Renewals and Administrative Expenses 

Section 441 Contracts 

Section 8 Preservation, Protection, and Family Unification 

Contract Administrators 

Public Housing Capital Fund 

Public Housing Operating Fund 

Choice Neighborhoods 

Native American Housing Block Grant 

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant 

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund 

Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund 

Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids 

Community Development Fund: 

Community Development Block Grants 

Integrated Planning and Investment Grants 

HOME Program: 

HOME Investment Partnership 

Self Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity: 

Capacity Building 

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program 

National Housing Development Corporation 

FHA General and Special Risk Program Account: 

Limitation on Guaranteed Loans 
156 

Limitation on Direct Loans 

Credit Subsidy 

Administrative Expenses 

GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program Account: 

Limitation on Guaranteed Loans 

Administrative Expenses 

Policy Development and Research 

Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Program 

Lead Hazards Reduction Program 

Healthy Homes Program 

Salaries and Expenses 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES

National Transportation Safety Board 

Amtrak Office of Inspector General 

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

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 27, 2013, the 

Committee ordered favorably reported an original bill (S. 1243) 

making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and 

Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, provided, that the bill be subject to amendment and that the bill be 

consistent with its spending allocations, by a recorded vote of 22– 

8, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairwoman Mikulski Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Leahy Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Harkin Mr. Alexander 

Mrs. Murray Mr. Graham 

Mrs. Feinstein Mr. Coats 

Mr. Durbin Mr. Blunt 

Mr. Johnson Mr. Johanns 

Ms. Landrieu Mr. Boozman 

Mr. Reed 

Mr. Pryor 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Udall 

Mrs. Shaheen 

Mr. Merkley 

Mr. Begich 

Mr. Coons 

Mr. Cochran 

Ms. Collins 

Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Kirk 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Hoeven 
157 

1So in original. The comma probably should be a semicolon. 

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

§ 1701q. Supportive housing for the elderly 

(a) Purpose 

* * * * * * * 

(f) Initial selection criteria and processing 

(1) Selection criteria 

* * * * * * * 

(2) Delegated processing 

(A) øIn issuing a capital advance under this subsection for 

any project for which financing for the purposes described in 

the last two sentences of subsection (b) is provided by a combination of a capital advance under subsection (c)(1) and 

sources other than this section, within 30 days of award of the 

capital advance, the Secretary shall delegate review and processing of such projects to a State or local housing agency 

that—¿ The Secretary shall establish procedures to delegate the 

award, review and processing of projects to a State or local 

housing agency that—; 

(i) is in geographic proximity to the property; 

* * * * * * * 

(iii) may or may not be providing low-income housing 

tax credits in combination with the øcapital advance¿ 

funding under this sectionø,¿;1 and 

(iv) agrees to issue a firm commitment within 12 

months of delegation. 
158 

(B) The Secretary shall retain the authority to process 

øcapital advances¿ funding under this section in cases in which 

no State or local housing agency has applied to provide delegated processing pursuant to this paragraph or no such agency 

has entered into an agreement with the Secretary to serve as 

a delegated processing agency. 

(C) øAn agency to which review and processing is delegated pursuant to subparagraph (A) may assess a reasonable 

fee which shall be included in the capital advance amounts and 

may recommend project rental assistance amounts in excess of 

those initially awarded by the Secretary.¿ The Secretary shall 

develop a schedule for reasonable fees under this subparagraph 

to be paid to delegated processing agencies, which shall take 

into consideration any other fees to be paid to the agency for 

other funding provided to the project by the agency, including 

bonds, tax credits, and other gap funding. 

Assistance under subsection (c)(2) may be provided for 

projects which identify in the application for assistance a defined health and other supportive services program including 

sources of financing the services for eligible residents and 

memoranda of understanding with service provision agencies 

and organizations to provide such services for eligible residents 

at their request. Such supportive services plan and memoranda 

of understating shall— 

(i) identify the target populations to be served by 

the project; 

(ii) set forth methods for outreach and referral; 

(iii) identify the health and other supportive services to be provided; and 

(iv) identify the terms under which such services 

will be made available to residents of the project. 

ø(D)¿ (E) Under such delegated system, the Secretary 

shall retain the authority to approve rents and development 

costs and to execute øa capital advance¿ funding under this 

section within 60 days of receipt of the commitment from the 

State or local agency. The Secretary shall provide to such agency and the project sponsor, in writing, the reasons for any reduction in øcapital advance amounts or project rental assistance¿ funding under this section and such reductions shall be 

subject to appeal. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1715z–7. Mortgage insurance for hospitals 

(a) Purpose 

* * * * * * * 

(i) Termination of exemption for critical access hospitals 

(1) In general 

The exemption for critical access hospitals under subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section shall have no effect after øJuly 

31, 2011¿ July 31, 2016. 
159 

TITLE 23—HIGHWAYS 

CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS 

§ 149. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 

program 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(m) OPERATING ASSISTANCE.—A State may obligate funds apportioned under section 104(b)(2) in an area of such State that is 

otherwise eligible for obligations of such funds for operating costs 

under chapter 53 of title 49 or on a system øthat was previously 

eligible under this section¿ for which CMAQ funding was made 

available, obligated or expended in fiscal year 2012, and shall have 

no imposed time limitation. 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 8—LOW-INCOME HOUSING

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING

§ 1437. Declaration of policy and public housing agency organization 

(a) Declaration of policy 

* * * * * * * 

(b) Public housing agency organization 

(1) Required membership 

* * * * * * * 

(3) Nondiscrimination 

No person shall be prohibited from serving on the board of 

directors or similar governing body of a public housing agency 

because of the residence of that person in a public housing 

project or status as assisted under section 1437f of this title. 

(4) SALARY.— 

(A) GENERAL.—This paragraph establishes the maximum salary that a public housing agency may provide to 

its employees and the maximum annual contract amounts 

that may be paid to its contract personnel using funds provided under this Act. A public housing agency shall use the 

same salary structure as described in this paragraph and 

follow the requirements of uniform administrative rules for 

Federal grants and cooperative agreements and principles 

and standards for determining costs for Federal awards for 

all payments that it makes to its employees and for personnel hired as contractors when funds provided under this 

Act are used for such payments. 

(B) SALARY STRUCTURE.— 

(i) The base salary of public housing agency employees and the contract amount paid to contracted 

personnel from funds provided under this Act shall be 
160 

based on the Federal General Schedule (GS) basic rate 

of pay, including locality adjustment, established 

under sections 5303 and 5304 of title 5, United States 

Code as follows: 

(I) For public housing agencies with fewer 

than 250 total units (public housing and section 8 

housing vouchers), the base salary of a public 

housing agency employee or total annual payment 

to each contracted personnel shall not exceed the 

basic rate of pay, including a locality adjustment, 

for GS–11, step 10; 

(II) For public housing agencies with 250 to 

1249 total units (public housing and section 8 

housing vouchers), the base salary of a public 

housing employee or total annual payment to each 

contracted personnel shall not exceed the basic rate 

of pay, including locality adjustment, for GS–13, 

step 10; 

(III) For public housing agencies with 1250 or 

more total units (public housing and section 8 

housing vouchers), the base salary of a public 

housing agency employee or total annual payment 

to each contracted personnel shall not exceed the 

basic rate of pay, including locality adjustment, 9 

for GS–15, step 10. 

(ii) Any amount of salary paid to an employee or 

of total annual payment to each contracted personnel 

that exceeds the amount provided under the structure 

of this paragraph must be from non-Act sources. 

(iii) The salary structure provided in subparagraph (B)(i) shall be subject to any requirements that 

may be established for the General Schedule by an appropriations Act or by Presidential executive order for 

any Federal fiscal year. 

(iv) A public housing agency must certify that it 

has established detailed performance measures that describe how public housing agency employees or personnel hired as contractors may receive a salary or contract increase within the limits of subparagraph (B)(i). 

The certification shall be transmitted to the Secretary 

in a format as determined by the Secretary. 

(C) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section— 

(i) Employee includes any member of a public 

housing agency organization whose salary is paid in 

whole or in part from funds provided under this Act, 

and regardless of whether such employee is full-time or 

part-time, temporary or permanent. 

(ii) Contracted personnel includes any member of a 

public housing agency organization whose position is 

procured under uniform administrative rules for Federal grants and cooperative agreements and who is 

paid in whole or in part from funds provided under 

this Act, and regardless of whether such individual is 

full-time or part-time, hourly, temporary or permanent. 
161 

No such position shall be for a period beyond 5 years 

without re-procurement. 

(iii) Salary includes the annual basic rate of pay, 

including a locality adjustment, as provided in subparagraph (B) and any additional adjustments, such 

as may be provided for overtime or shift differentials, 

bonuses, or contract payments including bonuses. Salary does not include fringe benefits as defined in principles and standards for determining costs for Federal 

awards. 

(D) DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS.—Each public housing 

agency shall make available to the Secretary upon request 

such financial and other records as the Secretary deems 

necessary for purpose of review and monitoring compliance 

with this section. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1437a. Rental payments 

(a) Families included; rent options; minimum amount; occupancy by police officers and over-income families 

(1) * * * 

(2) RENTAL PAYMENTS FOR PUBLIC HOUSING FAMILIES.— (A) AUTHORITY FOR FAMILY TO SELECT.— * * * 

(B) ALLOWABLE RENT STRUCTURES.— (i) FLAT RENTS.—øExcept as otherwise provided 

under this clause, each¿ Each public housing agency 

shall establish, for each dwelling unit in public housing owned or operated by the agency, a flat rental 

amount for the dwelling unit, which shall not be lower 

than 80 percent of the applicable fair market rental established under section 8(c) of this Act and which 

shall— (I) be based on the rental value of the unit, as 

determined by the public housing agency; and 

(II) be designed in accordance with subparagraph (D) so that the rent structures do not create 

a disincentive for continued residency in public 

housing by families who are attempting to become 

economically self-sufficient through employment 

or who have attained a level of self-sufficiency 

through their own efforts. 

øThe rental amount for a dwelling unit shall be considered to comply with the requirements of this clause if 

such amount does not exceed the actual monthly costs to 

the public housing agency attributable to providing and 

operating the dwelling unit. The preceding sentence may 

not be construed to require establishment of rental 

amounts equal to or based on operating costs or to prevent 

public housing agencies from developing flat rents required 

under this clause in any other manner that may comply 

with this clause.¿ Public housing agencies must comply by 

June 1, 2014, with the requirement of this clause, except 

that if a new flat rental amount for a dwelling unit will in-
162 

crease a family’s existing rental payment by more than 35 

percent, the new flat rental amount shall be phased in as 

necessary to ensure that the family’s existing rental payment does not increase by more than 35 percent annually. 

The preceding sentence shall not be construed to require establishment of rental amounts equal to 80 percent of the 

fair market rental in years when the fair market rental 

falls from the prior year. 

* * * * * * * 

(b) Definition of terms under this chapter 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(2)¿ (A) The term ‘‘low-income families’’ means those families 

whose incomes do not exceed 80 per centum of the median income 

for the area, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for 

smaller and larger families, except that the Secretary may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 80 per centum of the median for the area on the basis of the Secretary’s findings that such 

variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of construction 

costs or unusually high or low family incomes. 

(B) The term ‘‘very low-income families’’ means low-income 

families whose incomes do not exceed 50 per centum of the 

median family income for the area, as determined by the 

Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger families, except that the Secretary may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 50 per centum of the median for 

the area on the basis of the Secretary’s findings that such 

variations are necessary because of unusually high or low 

family incomes. 

(C) The term extremely low-income families means very 

low-income families whose incomes do not exceed the higher 

of— 

(i) the poverty guidelines updated periodically by the 

Department of Health and Human Services under the 

authority of section 673(2) of the Community Services 

Block Grant Act applicable to a family of the size involved (except that this clause shall not apply in the 

case of public housing agencies located in Puerto Rico 

or any other territory or possession of the United 

States); or 

(ii) 30 percent of the median family income for the 

area, as determined by the Secretary, with adjustments 

for smaller and larger families (except that the Secretary may establish income ceilings higher or lower 

than 30 percent of the median for the area on the basis 

of the Secretary’s findings that such variations are necessary because of unusually high or low family incomes). 

(D) Such ceilings shall be established in consultation with 

the Secretary of Agriculture for any rural area, as defined 

in section 1490 of this title, taking into account the subsidy characteristics and types of programs to which such 

ceilings apply. In determining median incomes (of persons, 
163 

families, or households) for an area or establishing any 

ceilings or limits based on income under this chapter, the 

Secretary shall determine or establish area median incomes and income ceilings and limits for Westchester and 

Rockland Counties, in the State of New York, as if each 

such county were an area not contained within the metropolitan statistical area in which it is located. In determining such area median incomes or establishing such income ceilings or limits for the portion of such metropolitan 

statistical area that does not include Westchester or Rockland Counties, the Secretary shall determine or establish 

area median incomes and income ceilings and limits as if 

such portion included Westchester and Rockland Counties. 

In determining areas that are designated as difficult development areas for purposes of the low-income housing tax 

credit, the Secretary shall include Westchester and Rockland Counties, New York, in the New York City metropolitan area. 

* * * * * * * 

(6) PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 

the term ‘‘public housing agency ’’ means any State, county, municipality, or other governmental entity or public 

body (or agency or instrumentality thereof) which is authorized to engage in or assist in the development or operation of public housing, or a consortium of such entities or 

bodies as approved by the Secretary. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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 ap-
164 

proved by the public housing agency in accordance with paragraph (3)(B). In the case of newly constructed and substantially rehabilitated units, the exception in the preceding sentence shall not apply to more than 20 per centum of the total 

amount of authority to enter into annual contributions contracts for such units which is allocated to an area and obligated with respect to any fiscal year beginning on or after October 1, 1980. øProposed fair market rentals for an area shall 

be published in the Federal Register with reasonable time for 

public comment, and shall become effective upon the date of 

publication in final form in the Federal Register.¿ Each fair 

market rental in effect under this subsection shall be adjusted 

to be effective on October 1 of each year to reflect changes, 

based on the most recent available data trended so the rentals 

will be current for the year to which they apply, of rents for 

existing or newly constructed rental dwelling units, as the case 

may be, of various sizes and types in the market area suitable 

for occupancy by persons assisted under this section. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, after October 12, 

1977, the Secretary shall prohibit high-rise elevator projects 

for families with children unless there is no practical alternative. øThe Secretary shall establish separate fair market 

rentals under this paragraph for Westchester County in the 

State of New York. The Secretary shall also establish separate 

fair market rentals under this paragraph for Monroe County in 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In establishing fair market rentals for the remaining portion of the market area in 

which Monroe County is located, the Secretary shall establish 

the fair market rentals as if such portion included Monroe 

County.¿ If units assisted under this section are exempt from 

local rent control while they are so assisted or otherwise, the 

maximum monthly rent for such units shall be reasonable in 

comparison with other units in the market area that are exempt from local rent control. 

(B) 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. 

* * * * * * * 
165 

(o) Voucher program 

* * * * * * * 

(1) Authority 

* * * * * * * 

(2) Amount of monthly assistance payment 

* * * * * * * 

(A) Tenant-based assistance; rent not exceeding payment standard 

* * * * * * * 

(C) Families receiving project-based assistance 

For a family receiving project-based assistance, the 

rent that the family is required to pay shall be determined 

in accordance with section 1437a(a)(1) of this title, and the 

amount of the housing assistance payment shall be determined in accordance with subsection (c)(3) of this section. 

(D) UTILITY ALLOWANCE.— (i) GENERAL.—In determining the monthly assistance payment for a family under subparagraphs (A) 

and (B), the amount allowed for tenant-paid utilities 

shall not exceed the appropriate utility allowance for 

the family unit size as determined by the public housing agency regardless of the size of the dwelling unit 

leased by the family. 

(ii) EXCEPTION FOR FAMILIES IN INCLUDING PER- SONS WITH DISABILITIES.—Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), upon request by a family that includes a 

person with disabilities, the public housing agency 

shall approve a utility allowance that is higher than 

the applicable amount on the utility allowance schedule if a higher utility allowance is needed as a reasonable accommodation to make the program accessible to 

and usable by the family member with a disability. 

* * * * * * * 

(8) Inspection of units by PHAs 

(A) In general 

* * * * * * * 

ø(D) Annual inspections 

øEach public housing agency providing assistance 

under this subsection (or other entity, as provided in paragraph (11)) shall make an annual inspection of each assisted dwelling unit during the term of the housing assistance payments contract for the unit to determine whether 

the unit is maintained in accordance with the requirements under subparagraph (A). The agency (or other entity) shall retain the records of the inspection for a reasonable time and shall make the records available upon request to the Secretary, the Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and any 

auditor conducting an audit under section 1437c(h) of this 

title.¿ 
166 

(D) BIENNIAL INSPECTIONS.— 

(i) REQUIREMENT.—Each public housing agency 

providing assistance under this subsection (or other entity, as provided in paragraph (11)) shall, for each assisted dwelling unit, make inspections not less often 

than biennially during the term of the housing assistance payments contract for the unit to determine 

whether the unit is maintained in accordance with the 

requirements under subparagraph (A). 

(ii) USE OF ALTERNATIVE INSPECTION METHOD.— 

The requirements under clause (i) may be complied 

with by use of inspections that qualify as an alternative inspection method pursuant to subparagraph 

(E). 

(iii) RECORDS.—The public housing agency (or 

other entity) shall retain the records of the inspection 

for a reasonable time, as determined by the Secretary, 

and shall make the records available upon request to 

the Secretary, the Inspector General for the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, and any auditor 

conducting an audit under section 5(h). 

(iv) MIXED-FINANCE PROPERTIES.—The Secretary 

may adjust the frequency of inspections for mixed-finance properties assisted with vouchers under paragraph (13) to facilitate the use of the alternative inspections in subparagraph (E). 

(E) ALTERNATIVE INSPECTION METHOD.—An inspection 

of a property shall qualify as an alternative inspection 

method for purposes of this subparagraph if— 

(i) the inspection was conducted pursuant to requirements under a Federal, State, or local housing 

program (including the Home investment partnership 

program under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act and the low-income 

housing tax credit program under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986); and 

(ii) pursuant to such inspection, the property was 

determined to meet the standards or requirements regarding housing quality or safety applicable to properties assisted under such program, and, if a non-Federal standard or requirement was used, the public 

housing agency has certified to the Secretary that such 

standard or requirement provides the same (or greater) 

protection to occupants of dwelling units meeting such 

standard or requirement as would the housing quality 

standards under subparagraph (B). 

(F) INTERIM INSPECTIONS.—Upon notification to the 

public housing agency, by a family (on whose behalf tenantbased rental assistance is provided under this subsection) 

or by a government official, that the dwelling unit for 

which such assistance is provided does not comply with the 

housing quality standards under subparagraph (B), the 

public housing agency shall inspect the dwelling unit— 
167 

1So in original. No subpar. (B) has been enacted. 

(i) in the case of any condition that is life-threatening, within 24 hours after the agency’s receipt of 

such notification, unless waived by the Secretary in extraordinary circumstances; and 

(ii) in the case of any condition that is not lifethreatening, within a reasonable time frame as determined by the Secretary.’’. 

(E) (G) Inspection guidelines 

The Secretary shall establish procedural guidelines 

and performance standards to facilitate inspections of 

dwelling units and conform such inspections with practices 

utilized in the private housing market. Such guidelines 

and standards shall take into consideration variations in 

local laws and practices of public housing agencies and 

shall provide flexibility to authorities appropriate to facilitate efficient provision of assistance under this subsection. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1437n. Eligibility for assisted housing 

(a) Income eligibility for public housing 

(1) Income mix within projects 

* * * * * * * 

(2) PHA income mix 

(A) 1TARGETING.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), of 

the public housing dwelling units of a public housing agency 

made available for occupancy in any fiscal year by eligible families, not less than 40 percent shall be occupied by øfamilies 

whose incomes at the time of commencement of occupancy do 

not exceed 30 percent of the area median income, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger families; except that the Secretary may establish income 

ceilings higher or lower than 30 percent of the area median income on the basis of the Secretary’s findings that such variations are necessary because of unusually high or low family 

incomes¿ extremely low-income families. 

* * * * * * * 

(b) Income eligibility for tenant-based section 1437f assistance 

(1) In general 

Of the families initially provided tenant based assistance 

under section 1437f of this title by a public housing agency in 

any fiscal year, not less than 75 percent shall be øfamilies 

whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the area median income, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for 

smaller and larger families; except that the Secretary may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 30 percent of the 

area median income on the basis of the Secretary’s findings 
168 

that such variations are necessary because of unusually high 

or low family incomes¿ extremely low-income families. 

* * * * * * * 

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

(1) Pre-1981 act projects 

* * * * * * * 

(3) Targeting 

For each project assisted under a contract for project-based 

assistance, of the dwelling units that become available for occupancy in any fiscal year that are assisted under the contract, 

not less than 40 percent shall be available for leasing only by 

øfamilies whose incomes at the time of commencement of occupancy do not exceed 30 percent of the area median income, as 

determined by the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and 

larger families; except that the Secretary may establish income 

ceilings higher or lower than 30 percent of the area median income on the basis of the Secretary’s findings that such variations are necessary because of unusually high or low family 

incomes¿ extremely low-income families. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1437v. Demolition, site revitalization, replacement housing, 

and tenant-based assistance grants for projects 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(m) Funding 

(1) Authorization of appropriations 

There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under this section $574,000,000 for øfiscal year 2010.¿ fiscal year 

2014. 

* * * * * * * 

(o) Sunset 

No assistance may be provided under this section after øSeptember 30, 2010.¿ September 30, 2014. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 130—NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING 

SUBCHAPTER II—INVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING 

PART A—HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS

§ 12755. Tenant and participant protections 

(a) Lease 

* * * * * * * 

(b) Termination of tenancy 
169 

An owner shall not terminate the tenancy or refuse to renew 

the lease of a tenant of rental housing assisted under this subchapter except for serious or repeated violation of the terms and 

conditions of the lease, for violation of applicable Federal, State, or 

local law, or for other good cause. Any termination or refusal to 

renew must be preceded by not less than 30 days by the owner’s 

service upon the tenant of a written notice specifying the grounds 

for the action. Such 30 day waiting period is not required if the 

grounds for the termination or refusal to renew involve a direct 

threat to the safety of the tenants or employees of the housing, or 

an imminent and serious threat to the property (and the termination or refusal to renew is in accordance with the requirements 

of State or local law). 

* * * * * * * 

PART B—COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP

§ 12771. Set-aside for community housing development organizations 

(a) In general 

* * * * * * * 

(b) Recapture and reuse 

If any funds reserved under subsection (a) of this section remain uninvested for a period of 24 months, then the Secretary 

shall deduct such funds from the line of credit in the participating 

jurisdiction’s HOME Investment Trust Fund and ømake such funds 

available by direct reallocation (1) to other participating jurisdictions for affordable housing developed, sponsored or owned by community housing development organizations, or (2) to nonprofit 

intermediary organizations to carry out activities that develop the 

capacity of community housing development organizations consistent with section 12773 of this title, with preference to community housing development organizations serving the jurisdiction 

from which the funds were recaptured¿ reallocate the funds by formula in accordance with section 217(d) of this Act (42 U.S.C. 

12747(d)). 

ø(c) Direct reallocation criteria 

øInsofar as practicable, direct reallocations under this section 

shall be made according to the selection criteria established under 

section 12747(c) of this title.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 119—HOMELESS ASSISTANCE 

SUBCHAPTER II—UNITED STATES INTERAGENCY COUNCIL 

ON HOMELESSNESS 

§ 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 
170 

1So in original. Probably should be followed by a period. 

for ølevel 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. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 11319. Termination 

The Council shall cease to exist, and the requirements of this 

subchapter shall terminate, on øOctober 1, 2015 1¿ October 1, 2020 

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION 

PART B—AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE 

CHAPTER 471—AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 

SUBCHAPTER I—AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT 

§ 47124. Agreements for State and local operation of airport 

facilities 

(a) GOVERNMENT RELIEF FROM LIABILITY.— * * * 

(b) AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL CONTRACT PROGRAM.—(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) CONTRACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER PROGRAM.—(A) IN

GENERAL.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) COSTS EXCEEDING BENEFITS.—If the costs of operating an 

air traffic tower under the program exceed the benefits, the airport 

sponsor or State or local government having jurisdiction over the 

airport shall pay the portion of the costs that exceed such øbenefit.¿ benefit, with the maximum allowable local cost share capped 

at 20 percent. 

HOUSING OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM EXTENSION ACT, 

1996, PUBLIC LAW 104–120 

PART D—SPECIFIED MODEL PROGRAMS

ASSISTANCE FOR SELF-HELP HOUSING PROVIDERS

(a) GRANT AUTHORITY.— * * * 

(b) GOALS AND ACCOUNTABILITY.— * * * 

(1) assistance provided under this section is used to facilitate and encourage innovative homeownership opportunities 

through the provision of self-help housing, under which the 

homeowner contributes a significant amount of sweat equity 

toward the constructionof the new dwellings or the rehabilitation of existing dwellings; 
171 

(2) assistance provided under this section for land acquisition and infrastructure development results in the development of not less than 4,000 new or rehabilitated dwellings; 

* * * * * * * 

(d) USE.— (1) PURPOSE.—Amounts from grants made under this section, including any recaptured amounts, shall be used only for 

eligible expenses in connection with developing new decent, 

safe, and sanitary nonluxury dwellings or rehabilitating existing dwellings to make them decent, safe and sanitary in the 

United States for families and persons who otherwise would be 

unable to afford to purchase a dwelling. 

(2) ELIGIBLE EXPENSES.— * * * 

(A) LAND ACQUISITION.— * * * 

(B) INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT.—Installing, extending, constructing, rehabilitating, or otherwise improving utilities and other infrastructure. 

Such term does not include any costs for the rehabilitation,improvement, or construction of dwellings. 

(C) PLANNING, ADMINISTRATION, AND MANAGEMENT.— 

Planning, administration, and management of grant programs and activities, provided that such expenses do not 

exceed 20 percent of any grant made under this section. 

* * * * * * * 

(i) GRANT AGREEMENT.—A grant under this section shall be 

made only pursuant to a grant agreement entered into by the Secretary and the organization or consortia receiving the grant, which 

shall— 

(1) require such organization or consortia to use grant 

amounts only as provided in this section; 

* * * * * * * 

(5) provide that the Secretary shall recapture any grant 

amounts provided to the organization or consortia that are not 

used within ø24¿ 36 months after such amounts are first disbursed to the organization or consortia, øexcept 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 ø24¿ 36 months after grant 

amounts are first made available to the organization or consortia ø(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)¿, substan-
172 

tially fulfilled the obligations under the grant agreement, including development of the appropriate number of dwellings 

under the agreement, the Secretary shall use any such 

undisbursed amounts remaining from such grant for other 

grants in accordance with this section. 

(2) DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION AND CONVEYANCE.—The 

Secretary shall establish a deadline (which may be extended for 

good cause as determined by the Secretary) by which time all 

units that have been assisted with grant funds under this section must be completed and conveyed. 

SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS, 2005, 

PUBLIC LAW 109–59 

TITLE IV—MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY 

Subtitle A—Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety 

SEC. 4138. HIGH RISK CARRIER COMPLIANCE REVIEWS. 

From the funds authorized by section 31104(i) of title 49, 

United States Code, the Secretary shall ensure that compliance reviews are completed on motor carriers that have demonstrated 

through performance data that they pose the highest safety risk. 

At a minimum, a compliance review shall be conducted whenever 

a motor carrier is rated as øcategory A or B¿ high-risk for 2 consecutive months. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4144. MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT AND DUTIES.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) TERMINATION DATE.—Notwithstanding the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the advisory committee shall 

terminate on øSeptember 30, 2010¿ September 30, 2014. 
173 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO ADDRESS HURRICANES 

IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, AND PANDEMIC INFLUENZA 

ACT, 2006, PUBLIC LAW 109–148 

DIVISION B 

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO ADDRESS HURRICANES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO AND PANDEMIC INFLUENZA, 2006 

TITLE I 

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO 

ADDRESS HURRICANES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO 

CHAPTER 9 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

For an additional amount for the ‘‘Community development 

fund’’, for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term 

recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in the most impacted 

and distressed areas related to the consequences of hurricanes in 

the Gulf of Mexico in 2005 in States for which the President declared a major disaster under title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) 

in conjunction with Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or Wilma, 

$11,500,000,000, to remain available until expended, for activities 

authorized under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–383): Provided, That no State 

shall receive more than 54 percent of the amount provided under 

this heading: Provided further, That funds provided under this 

heading shall be administered through an entity or entities designated by the Governor of each State: Provided further, That such 

funds may not be used for activities reimbursable by or for which 

funds are made available by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency or the Army Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That 

funds allocated under this heading shall not adversely affect the 

amount of any formula assistance received by a State under this 

heading: Provided further, That each State may use up to five percent of its allocation for administrative costs: Provided further, 

That Louisiana and Mississippi may each use up to $20,000,000 

(with up to $400,000 each for technical assistance) from funds 

made available under this heading for LISC and the Enterprise 

Foundation for activities authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 9816 note), as in effect immediately before June 12, 1997, and for activities authorized under 

section 11 of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 

1996, including demolition, site clearance and remediation, and 

program administration: Provided further, That in administering 

the funds under this heading, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
174 

Development shall waive, or specify alternative requirements for, 

any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with the obligation by the Secretary or the 

use by the recipient of these funds or guarantees (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment), upon a request by the State that such 

waiver is required to facilitate the use of such funds or guarantees, 

and a finding by the Secretary that such waiver would not be inconsistent with the overall purpose of the statute, as modified: Provided further, That the Secretary may waive the requirement that 

activities benefit persons of low and moderate income, except that 

at least 50 percent of the funds made available under this heading 

must benefit primarily persons of low and moderate income unless 

the Secretary otherwise makes a finding of compelling need: Provided further, That the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register any waiver of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers pursuant to title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 no later than 5 days before the effective date 

of such waiver: Provided further, That every waiver made by the 

Secretary must be reconsidered according to the three previous provisos on the two-year anniversary of the day the Secretary published the waiver in the Federal Register: Provided further, That 

prior to the obligation of funds each State shall submit a plan to 

the Secretary detailing the proposed use of all funds, including criteria for eligibility and how the use of these funds will address 

long-term recovery and restoration of infrastructure: Provided further, That each State will report øquarterly¿ annually to the Committees on Appropriations on all awards and uses of funds made 

available under this heading, including specifically identifying all 

awards of sole-source contracts and the rationale for making the 

award on a sole-source basis: Provided further, That the Secretary 

shall notify the Committees on Appropriations on any proposed allocation of any funds and any related waivers made pursuant to 

these provisions under this heading no later than 5 days before 

such waiver is made: Provided further, That the Secretary shall establish procedures to prevent recipients from receiving any duplication of benefits and report øquarterly¿ annually to the Committees 

on Appropriations with regard to all steps taken to prevent fraud 

and abuse of funds made available under this heading including 

duplication of benefits: Provided further, That the amounts provided under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), 

the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006. 
175 

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT 

FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND 

HURRICANE RECOVERY, 2006, PUBLIC LAW 109–234 

TITLE II 

FURTHER HURRICANE DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY 

CHAPTER 9 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For an additional amount for the ‘‘Community development 

fund’’, for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term 

recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in the most impacted 

and distressed areas related to the consequences of Hurricanes 

Katrina, Rita, or Wilma in States for which the President declared 

a major disaster under title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), 

$5,200,000,000, to remain available until expended, for activities 

authorized under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–383): Provided, That funds provided under this heading shall be administered through an entity 

or entities designated by the Governor of each State: Provided further, That such funds may not be used for activities reimbursable 

by or for which funds are made available by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Army Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That funds allocated under this heading shall not adversely affect the amount of any formula assistance received by a 

State under this heading: Provided further, That each State may 

use up to five percent of its allocation for administrative costs: Provided further, That not less than $1,000,000,000 from funds made 

available on a pro-rata basis according to the allocation made to 

each State under this heading shall be used for repair, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (including demolition, site clearance and 

remediation) of the affordable rental housing stock (including public and other HUD-assisted housing) in the impacted areas: Provided further, That no State shall receive more than 

$4,200,000,000: Provided further, That in administering the funds 

under this heading, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may waive, or specify alternative requirements for, any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in 

connection with the obligation by the Secretary or the use by the 

recipient of these funds or guarantees (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the 

environment), upon a request by the State that such waiver is required to facilitate the use of such funds or guarantees, and a finding by the Secretary that such waiver would not be inconsistent 

with the overall purpose of the statute: Provided further, That the 

Secretary may waive the requirement that activities benefit per-
176 

sons of low and moderate income, except that at least 50 percent 

of the funds made available under this heading must benefit primarily persons of low and moderate income unless the Secretary 

otherwise makes a finding of compelling need: Provided further, 

That the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register any waiver of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers pursuant to title I of the Housing and Community Development Act 

of 1974 no later than 5 days before the effective date of such waiver: Provided further, That every waiver made by the Secretary 

must be reconsidered according to the three previous provisos on 

the two-year anniversary of the day the Secretary published the 

waiver in the Federal Register: Provided further, That prior to the 

obligation of funds each State shall submit a plan to the Secretary 

detailing the proposed use of all funds, including criteria for eligibility and how the use of these funds will address long-term recovery and restoration of infrastructure: Provided further, That prior 

to the obligation of funds to each State, the Secretary shall ensure 

that such plan gives priority to infrastructure development and rehabilitation and the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the affordable rental housing stock including public and other HUD-assisted 

housing: Provided further, That each State will report øquarterly¿ 

annually to the Committees on Appropriations on all awards and 

uses of funds made available under this heading, including specifically identifying all awards of sole-source contracts and the rationale for making the award on a sole-source basis: Provided further, 

That the Secretary shall notify the Committees on Appropriations 

on any proposed allocation of any funds and any related waivers 

made pursuant to these provisions under this heading no later 

than 5 days before such waiver is made: Provided further, That the 

Secretary shall establish procedures to prevent recipients from receiving any duplication of benefits and report øquarterly¿ annually 

to the Committees on Appropriations with regard to all steps taken 

to prevent fraud and abuse of funds made available under this 

heading including duplication of benefits: Provided further, That of 

the amounts made available under this heading, $12,000,000 shall 

be transferred to ‘‘Management and Administration, Salaries and 

Expenses’’, of which $7,000,000 is for the administrative costs, including IT costs, of the KDHAP/DVP voucher program; $9,000,000 

shall be transferred to the Office of Inspector General; and 

$6,000,000 shall be transferred to HUD’s Working Capital Fund: 

Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this heading may be used by a State or locality as a matching requirement, 

share, or contribution for any other Federal program: Provided further, That the amounts provided under this heading are designated 

as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. 

Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget 

for fiscal year 2006. 
177 

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008, PUBLIC 

LAW 110–161 

DIVISION K—TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

ACT, 2008 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

øFLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

ø(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

øFrom the Rental Housing Assistance Fund, all uncommitted 

balances of excess rental charges as of September 30, 2007, and 

any collections made during fiscal year 2008 and all subsequent fiscal years, shall be transferred to the Flexible Subsidy Fund, as authorized by section 236(g) of the National Housing Act.¿ 

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008, PUBLIC 

LAW 110–252 

TITLE II—DOMESTIC MATTERS 

CHAPTER 6—HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

For an additional amount for ‘‘Community Development Fund’’, 

for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in areas covered by a declaration of major disaster under title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) 

as a result of recent natural disasters, $300,000,000, to remain 

available until expended, for activities authorized under title I of 

the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 

93–383): Provided, That funds provided under this heading shall be 

administered through an entity or entities designated by the Governor of each State: Provided further, That such funds may not be 

used for activities reimbursable by or for which funds are made 

available by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the 

Army Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That funds allocated 

under this heading shall not adversely affect the amount of any formula assistance received by a State under this heading: Provided 

further, That each State may use up to five percent of its allocation 

for administrative costs: Provided further, That in administering 

the funds under this heading, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 

Development shall waive, or specify alternative requirements for, 

any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary ad-
178 

ministers in connection with the obligation by the Secretary or the 

use by the recipient of these funds or guarantees (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment), upon a request by the State that such 

waiver is required to facilitate the use of such funds or guarantees, 

and a finding by the Secretary that such waiver would not be inconsistent with the overall purpose of the statute, as modified: Provided further, That the Secretary may waive the requirement that 

activities benefit persons of low and moderate income, except that 

at least 50 percent of the funds made available under this heading 

must benefit primarily persons of low and moderate income unless 

the Secretary otherwise makes Federal Register, a finding of compelling need: Provided further, That the Secretary shall publish in 

the Federal Register any waiver of any statute or regulation that 

the Secretary administers pursuant to title I of the Housing and 

Community Development Act of 1974 no later than 5 days before 

the effective date of such waiver: Provided further, That every 

waiver made by the Secretary must be reconsidered according to 

the three previous provisos on the two-year anniversary of the day 

the Secretary published the waiver in the Federal Register: Provided further, That prior to the obligation of funds each State shall 

submit a plan to the Secretary detailing the proposed use of all 

funds, including criteria for eligibility and how the use of these 

funds will address long-term recovery and restoration of infrastructure: Provided further, That each State will report øquarterly¿ annually to the Committees on Appropriations on all awards and uses 

of funds made available under this heading, including specifically 

identifying all awards of sole-source contracts and the rationale for 

making the award on a sole-source basis: Provided further, That 

the Secretary shall notify the Committees on Appropriations on 

any proposed allocation of any funds and any related waivers made 

pursuant to these provisions under this heading no later than 5 

days before such waiver is made: Provided further, That the Secretary shall establish procedures to prevent recipients from receiving any duplication of benefits and report øquarterly¿ annually to 

the Committees on Appropriations with regard to all steps taken 

to prevent fraud and abuse of funds made available under this 

heading including duplication of benefits. 
179 

CONSOLIDATED SECURITY, DISASTER ASSISTANCE, AND 

CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009, PUBLIC 

LAW 110–329 

DIVISION B—DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY 

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 

TITLE I—RELIEF AND RECOVERY FROM NATURAL 

DISASTERS 

CHAPTER 10—TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

For an additional amount for the ‘‘Community Development 

Fund’’, for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term 

recovery, and restoration of infrastructure, housing, and economic 

revitalization in areas affected by hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters occurring during 2008 for which the President declared a major disaster under title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974, $6,500,000,000, 

to remain available until expended, for activities authorized under 

title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 

(Public Law 93–383): Provided, That funds provided under this 

heading shall be administered through an entity or entities designated by the Governor of each State: Provided further, That such 

funds may not be used for activities reimbursable by, or for which 

funds are made available by, the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency or the Army Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That 

funds allocated under this heading shall not adversely affect the 

amount of any formula assistance received by a State under the 

Community Development Fund: Provided further, That each State 

may use up to 5 percent of its allocation for administrative costs: 

Provided further, That $6,500,000 shall be available for use by the 

Assistant Secretary of Community Planning and Development for 

the administrative costs, including information technology costs, 

with respect to amounts made available under this section and 

under section 2301(a) of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act 

of 2008: Provided further, That not less than $650,000,000 from 

funds made available on a pro-rata basis according to the allocation 

made to each State under this heading shall be used for repair, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (including demolition, site clearance and remediation) of the affordable rental housing stock (including public and other HUD-assisted housing) in the impacted 

areas where there is a demonstrated need as determined by the 

Secretary: Provided further, That in administering the funds under 

this heading, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

may waive, or specify alternative requirements for, any provision 

of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with the obligation by the Secretary or the use by the recipient of these funds or guarantees (except for requirements re-
180 

lated to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the 

environment), upon a request by a State explaining why such waiver is required to facilitate the use of such funds or guarantees, if 

the Secretary finds that such waiver would not be inconsistent with 

the overall purpose of title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974: Provided further, That a waiver granted by the 

Secretary under the preceding proviso may not reduce the percentage of funds which must be used for activities that benefit persons 

of low and moderate income to less than 50 percent, unless the Secretary specifically finds that there is compelling need to further reduce or eliminate the percentage requirement: Provided further, 

That the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register any waiver of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers pursuant to title I of the Housing and Community Development Act 

of 1974 no later than 5 days before the effective date of such waiver: Provided further, That every waiver made by the Secretary 

must be reconsidered according to the three previous provisos on 

the 2-year anniversary of the day the Secretary published the waiver in the Federal Register: Provided further, That the Secretary 

shall allocate to the states not less than 33 percent of the funding 

provided under this heading within 60 days after the enactment of 

this Act based on the best estimates available of relative damage 

and anticipated assistance from other Federal sources: Provided 

further, That prior to the obligation of funds each State shall submit a plan to the Secretary detailing the proposed use of all funds, 

including criteria for eligibility and how the use of these funds will 

address long-term recovery and restoration of infrastructure: Provided further, That each State will report øquarterly¿ annually to 

the Committees on Appropriations on all awards and uses of funds 

made available under this heading, including specifically identifying all awards of sole-source contracts and the rationale for making the award on a sole-source basis: Provided further, That the 

Secretary shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of any 

proposed allocation of any funds and any related waivers made 

pursuant to the provisions under this heading no later than 5 days 

before such allocation or waiver is made: Provided further, That the 

Secretary shall establish procedures to prevent recipients from receiving any duplication of benefits and report øquarterly¿ annually 

to the Committees on Appropriations with regard to all steps taken 

to prevent fraud and abuse of funds made available under this 

heading including duplication of benefits: Provided further, That 

none of the funds provided under this heading may be used by a 

State or locality as a matching requirement, share, or contribution 

for any other Federal program. 
181 

CONSOLIDATED AND FURTHER CONTINUING 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012, PUBLIC LAW 112–55 

DIVISION C—TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION

To conduct a demonstration designed to preserve and improve 

public housing and certain other multifamily housing through the 

voluntary conversion of properties with assistance under section 9 

of the United States Housing Act of 1937, (hereinafter, ‘‘the Act’’), 

or the moderate rehabilitation program under section 8(e)(2) of the 

Act ø(except for funds allocated under such section for single room 

occupancy dwellings as authorized by title IV of the McKinneyVento 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 ‘‘TenantBased Rental Assistance’’ or ‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’: 

Provided, That the initial long-term contract under which converted assistance is made available may allow for rental adjustments only by an operating cost factor established by the Secretary, and shall be subject to the availability of appropriations for 

each year of such term: Provided further, That project applications 

may be received under this demonstration until September 30, 

2015: Provided further, That any increase in cost for ‘‘Tenant-Based 

Rental Assistance’’ or ‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’ associated 

with such conversion in excess of amounts made available under 

this heading shall be equal to amounts transferred from ‘‘Public 

Housing Capital Fund’’ and ‘‘Public Housing Operating Fund’’ or 

other account from which it was transferred: Provided further, That 

not more than ø60,000¿ 120,000 units currently receiving assistance under section 9 øor 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 fur-
182 

ther, 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 pro-
183 

viso: 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 øand 2013¿ through 2015, owners of properties assisted under section 101 of the Housing and 

Urban Development Act of 1965, section 236(f)(2) of the National 

Housing Act, or section 8(e)(2) ø(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 øand agreement of the 

administering public housing agency,¿ either for conversion of assistance available for such vouchers, subject to the agreement of the 

administering public housing agency, to assistance under section 

8(o)(13) of the Act, to which the limitation under subsection (B) of 

section 8(o)(13) of the Act shall not apply and for which the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may waive or alter the 

provisions of subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 8(o)(13) of the 

Act or for conversion of assistance available for such tenant protection vouchers to assistance under a project-based subsidy contract 

under section 8 of the Act, which shall have a term of no less than 

20 years, with rent adjustments limited to an operating cost factor 

established by the Secretary, and shall be subject to the availability 

of appropriations for each year of such term, and which shall be eligible for renewal under section 524 of the Multifamily Assisted 

Housing Reform and Affordability of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note): 

Provided further, That amounts made available under the headings 

‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’ and ‘‘Other Assisted Housing Programs, Rental Housing Assistance’’ during the period of conversion 

under the previous proviso, which may extend beyond fiscal year 

2015 as necessary to allow processing of all timely applications, 

shall be available for project-based subsidy contracts entered into 

pursuant to the previous proviso: Provided further, That amounts, 

including contract authority, recaptured from contracts following a 

conversion under the previous two provisos are hereby rescinded 

and an amount of additional new budget authority, equivalent to 

the amount rescinded is hereby appropriated, to remain available 

until expended for such conversions: Provided further, That with respect to applications submitted the Secretary may transfer amounts 

under the heading ‘‘Other Assisted Housing Programs, Rental Housing Assistance’’, amounts made available for tenant protection 

vouchers under the heading ‘‘Tenant-Based Rental Assistance’’, and 

amounts made available under the previous proviso as needed to the 

account under the ‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’ heading to facilitate conversion under the three previous provisos and any in-
184 

crease 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 øproviso¿ four provisos, 

the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study 

of the long-term impact of the previous øproviso¿ four provisos on 

the ratio of tenant-based vouchers to project-based vouchers. 

* * * * * * * 

DISASTER RELIEF APPROPRIATIONS, 2013, PUBLIC LAW 

113–2 

DIVISION A—DISASTER RELIEF APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 

2013 

TITLE X 

ADDITIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE 

CHAPTER 9 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

For an additional amount for ‘‘Grants to the National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation’’ for the Secretary of Transportation to 

make capital and debt service grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation to advance capital projects that address Northeast Corridor infrastructure recovery and resiliency in the affected 

areas, $86,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 

That none of the funds may be used to subsidize operating losses 

of the Corporation: Provided further, That as a condition of eligibility for receipt of such funds, the Corporation shall not, after the 

enactment of this division, use any funds provided for Capital and 

Debt Service Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation in this division øor any other Act¿ for operating expenses, 

which includes temporary transfers of such funds: Provided further, 

That the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration 

may retain up to one-half of 1 percent of the funds provided under 

this heading to fund the award and oversight by the Administrator 

of grants made under this heading: Provided further, That for an 

additional amount for the Secretary to make operating subsidy 

grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for necessary repairs related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy, 

$32,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided further, 

That each amount under this heading is designated by the Congress as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 

251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 
185 

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 

guidance 1

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

guidance 

Amount 

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee guidance to 

its subcommittees of amounts for 2014: Subcommittee on 

Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and 

Related Agencies 

Mandatory ............................................................................ NA .................... NA ....................

Discretionary ........................................................................ 54,045 54,045 NA 2 117,478 

Security ....................................................................... 186 186 NA NA 

Nonsecurity ................................................................. 53,859 53,859 NA NA 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2014 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3 37,144 

2015 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 35,202 

2016 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 14,386 

2017 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 6,207 

2018 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 7,680 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2014 ......................................................................................... NA 32,892 NA 30,628 

1 There is no section 302(a) allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2014. 

2 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

3 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
186 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2013 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2013 appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 102,276 113,109 109,340 ∂7,064 ¥3,769 

Immediate Office of the Secretary .................................................................................................................... (2,613 ) (2,652 ) (2,652 ) (∂39 ) ............................Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary ........................................................................................................ (982 ) (1,000 ) (1,000 ) (∂18 ) ............................Office of the General Counsel ........................................................................................................................... (19,476 ) (20,504 ) (20,502 ) (∂1,026 ) (¥2 ) Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy .............................................................................. (10,087 ) (12,804 ) (10,271 ) (∂184 ) (¥2,533 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs ........................................................................... (10,517 ) (13,326 ) (13,026 ) (∂2,509 ) (¥300 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs ............................................................................. (2,495 ) (2,627 ) (2,627 ) (∂132 ) ............................Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ....................................................................................... (25,418 ) (27,468 ) (26,686 ) (∂1,268 ) (¥782 ) Office of Public Affairs ..................................................................................................................................... (2,016 ) (2,203 ) (2,051 ) (∂35 ) (¥152 ) Office of the Executive Secretariat ................................................................................................................... (1,592 ) (1,714 ) (1,714 ) (∂122 ) ............................Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ................................................................................ (1,366 ) (1,386 ) (1,386 ) (∂20 ) ............................Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response .............................................................................. (10,756 ) (10,849 ) (10,849 ) (∂93 ) ............................Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................................................................................. (14,958 ) (16,576 ) (16,576 ) (∂1,618 ) ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 102,276 113,109 109,340 ∂7,064 ¥3,769 

Research and technology ........................................................................................................................................... ............................ 14,765 14,765 ∂14,765 ............................National infrastructure investments .......................................................................................................................... 499,000 500,000 550,000 ∂51,000 ∂50,000 Aviation consumer call center ................................................................................................................................... ............................ 7,500 ............................ ............................ ¥7,500 Financial management capital .................................................................................................................................. 4,980 10,000 10,000 ∂5,020 ............................Cyber security initiatives ............................................................................................................................................ 9,980 6,000 6,000 ¥3,980 ............................Office of Civil Rights ................................................................................................................................................. 9,365 9,551 9,551 ∂186 ............................Transportation planning, research, and development ............................................................................................... 8,982 9,750 9,750 ∂768 ............................

(Rescission) ....................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥2,750 ¥2,750 ¥2,750 ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 8,982 7,000 7,000 ¥1,982 ............................

Working capital fund .................................................................................................................................................. (172,000 ) ............................ (178,000 ) (∂6,000 ) (∂178,000 ) Minority Business Resource Center Program ............................................................................................................. 920 925 925 ∂5 ............................
187 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (18,367 ) (18,367 ) (18,367 ) ............................ ............................

Minority business outreach ........................................................................................................................................ 3,062 3,088 3,088 ∂26 ............................Payments to air carriers (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) ........................................................................................ 142,714 146,000 146,000 ∂3,286 ............................

Total, Office of the Secretary ....................................................................................................................... 781,279 817,938 856,669 ∂75,390 ∂38,731 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Operations .................................................................................................................................................................. 9,634,089 9,707,000 9,707,000 ∂72,911 ............................

Air traffic organization ...................................................................................................................................... (7,427,853 ) (7,311,790 ) (7,311,790 ) (¥116,063 ) ............................Aviation safety ................................................................................................................................................... (1,250,485 ) (1,204,777 ) (1,216,777 ) (¥33,708 ) (∂12,000 ) Commercial space transportation ..................................................................................................................... (16,238 ) (16,011 ) (17,011 ) (∂773 ) (∂1,000 ) Finance and management ................................................................................................................................ (580,953 ) (807,646 ) (802,520 ) (∂221,567 ) (¥5,126 ) Human resource management .......................................................................................................................... (98,660 ) (107,193 ) (106,193 ) (∂7,533 ) (¥1,000 ) Staff offices ....................................................................................................................................................... (199,885 ) (199,801 ) (192,780 ) (¥7,105 ) (¥7,021 ) Next Gen ............................................................................................................................................................ (60,014 ) (59,782 ) (59,477 ) (¥537 ) (¥305 ) 

Facilities and equipment (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) ....................................................................................... 2,725,270 2,777,798 2,730,000 ∂4,730 ¥47,798 Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway Trust Fund ............................................................... 167,221 166,000 160,000 ¥7,221 ¥6,000 

(Rescission) ....................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥26,183 ¥26,183 ¥26,183 

Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)(Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................ (3,435,000 ) (3,200,000 ) (3,200,000 ) (¥235,000 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (3,343,300 ) (2,900,000 ) (3,350,000 ) (∂6,700 ) (∂450,000 ) Administration ................................................................................................................................................... (100,798 ) (106,600 ) (106,600 ) (∂5,802 ) ............................Airport Cooperative Research Program ............................................................................................................. (14,970 ) (15,000 ) (15,000 ) (∂30 ) ............................Airport technology research ............................................................................................................................... (29,192 ) (29,500 ) (29,500 ) (∂308 ) ............................Small community air service development program ........................................................................................ (5,988 ) ............................ (6,000 ) (∂12 ) (∂6,000 ) 

(Rescission of contract authority) ............................................................................................................ ............................ ¥450,000 ............................ ............................ ∂450,000 

Total, Federal Aviation Administration ................................................................................................ 12,526,580 12,200,798 12,570,817 ∂44,237 ∂370,019 Limitations on obligations ................................................................................................................... (3,343,300 ) (2,900,000 ) (3,350,000 ) (∂6,700 ) (∂450,000 ) 

Federal Highway Administration 

Limitation on administrative expenses ...................................................................................................................... (416,126 ) (429,855 ) (429,855 ) (∂13,729 ) ............................Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (39,882,583 ) (40,955,000 ) (40,995,000 ) (∂1,112,417 ) (∂40,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... (39,619,602 ) (40,256,000 ) (40,256,000 ) (∂636,398 ) ............................(Exempt contract authority) ..................................................................................................................... (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................

Bridges in critical corridors ....................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 500,000 ∂500,000 ∂500,000 

Total, Federal Highway Administration ......................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 500,000 ∂500,000 ∂500,000 
188 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2013 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2013 appropriation Budget estimate 

Limitations on obligations ............................................................................................................................ (39,619,602 ) (40,256,000 ) (40,256,000 ) (∂636,398 ) ............................Exempt contract authority ............................................................................................................................ (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust Fund)(Liquidation of contract authorization) ........ (251,000 ) (259,000 ) (259,000 ) (∂8,000 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (250,498 ) (259,000 ) (259,000 ) (∂8,502 ) ............................

Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ..................................... (310,000 ) (313,000 ) (317,000 ) (∂7,000 ) (∂4,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (309,380 ) (313,000 ) (317,000 ) (∂7,620 ) (∂4,000 ) 

National Motor Carrier Safety Program (Highway Trust Fund) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ (19,000 ) (∂19,000 ) (∂19,000 ) 

Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ...................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................(Limitations on obligations) ......................................................................................................................... (559,878 ) (572,000 ) (595,000 ) (∂35,122 ) (∂23,000 ) 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Operations and research (general fund) ................................................................................................................... 139,866 148,343 148,343 ∂8,477 ............................Vehicle safety ............................................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Operations and research (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ......................................... (115,500 ) (118,500 ) (138,500 ) (∂23,000 ) (∂20,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (115,269 ) (118,500 ) (138,500 ) (∂23,231 ) (∂20,000 ) 

Subtotal, Operations and Research .............................................................................................................. 255,135 266,843 286,843 ∂31,708 ∂20,000 Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 255,135 266,843 286,843 ∂31,708 ∂20,000 

Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ................................. (554,500 ) (561,500 ) (561,500 ) (∂7,000 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (553,391 ) (561,500 ) (561,500 ) (∂8,109 ) ............................

Highway safety programs (23 USC 402) ................................................................................................. (234,530 ) (235,000 ) (235,000 ) (∂470 ) ............................National priority safety programs (23 USC 405) ..................................................................................... (264,470 ) (272,000 ) (272,000 ) (∂7,530 ) ............................High-visibility enforcement ...................................................................................................................... (28,942 ) (29,000 ) (29,000 ) (∂58 ) ............................
189 

Administration expenses .......................................................................................................................... (25,449 ) (25,500 ) (25,500 ) (∂51 ) ............................

Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ....................................................................... 139,866 148,343 148,343 ∂8,477 ............................Limitations on obligations ................................................................................................................... (668,660 ) (680,000 ) (700,000 ) (∂31,340 ) (∂20,000 ) 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety and operations ................................................................................................................................................ 178,239 184,500 184,500 ∂6,261 ............................

Offsetting fee collections .................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 178,239 184,500 184,500 ∂6,261 ............................

Railroad research and development .......................................................................................................................... 34,930 35,250 35,250 ∂320 ............................Capital assistance for national high-perfomance passenger rail service ................................................................ ............................ ............................ 100,000 ∂100,000 ∂100,000 Railroad Grants (Legislative proposal): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. ............................ (6,414,750 ) ............................ ............................ (¥6,414,750 ) (Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ ............................ (6,414,750 ) ............................ ............................ (¥6,414,750 ) 

Current passenger rail service ................................................................................................................. ............................ (2,700,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥2,700,000 ) Railroad research, development and technology ..................................................................................... ............................ (54,750 ) ............................ ............................ (¥54,750 ) Rail service improvement program .......................................................................................................... ............................ (3,660,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥3,660,000 ) Next generation high-speed rail service (rescission) .............................................................................. ............................ ............................ ¥1,973 ¥1,973 ¥1,973 Northeast corridor improvement (rescission) ........................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥4,419 ¥4,419 ¥4,419 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation: 

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation .................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 1,452,000 ∂1,452,000 ∂1,452,000 Operating grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ................................................................. 465,068 ............................ ............................ ¥465,068 ............................Capital and debt service grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ......................................... 950,096 ............................ ............................ ¥950,096 ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,415,164 ............................ 1,452,000 ∂36,836 ∂1,452,000 Total, Federal Railroad Administration ......................................................................................................... 1,628,333 219,750 1,765,358 ∂137,025 ∂1,545,608 (Limitations on obligations) ......................................................................................................................... ............................ (6,414,750 ) ............................ ............................ (¥6,414,750 ) 

Federal Transit Administration 

Administrative expenses ............................................................................................................................................. 102,508 109,888 109,888 ∂7,380 ............................Formula Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account (Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................... (9,400,000 ) (9,500,000 ) (9,500,000 ) (∂100,000 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (8,461,044 ) (8,595,000 ) (8,595,000 ) (∂133,956 ) ............................

Public transportation emergency relief ...................................................................................................................... ............................ 25,000 15,000 ∂15,000 ¥10,000 Research and technical assistance ........................................................................................................................... 43,912 49,000 55,300 ∂11,388 ∂6,300 Capital investment grants ......................................................................................................................................... 1,951,090 1,981,742 1,942,938 ¥8,152 ¥38,804 
190 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2013 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2013 appropriation Budget estimate 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority capital and preventive maintenance ........................................... 149,700 150,000 150,000 ∂300 ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 149,700 150,000 150,000 ∂300 ............................

Administrative Provisions 

Federal Transit Administration (rescission) ............................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥96,156 ¥96,156 ¥96,156 

Total, Federal Transit Administration ........................................................................................................... 2,247,210 2,315,630 2,176,970 ¥70,240 ¥138,660 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (2,247,210 ) (2,315,630 ) (2,273,126 ) (∂25,916 ) (¥42,504 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ (¥96,156 ) (¥96,156 ) (¥96,156 ) Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Limitations on obligations ............................................................................................................................ (8,461,044 ) (8,595,000 ) (8,595,000 ) (∂133,956 ) ............................

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) .............................................................................. 32,194 32,855 33,000 ∂806 ∂145 

Maritime Administration 

Maritime security program ......................................................................................................................................... 173,944 208,000 186,000 ∂12,056 ¥22,000 Operations and training ............................................................................................................................................. 155,945 152,168 153,803 ¥2,142 ∂1,635 Ship disposal .............................................................................................................................................................. 5,489 2,000 4,800 ¥689 ∂2,800 Assistance to small shipyards ................................................................................................................................... 9,960 ............................ 10,000 ∂40 ∂10,000 Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account: 

Administrative expenses .................................................................................................................................... 3,733 2,655 3,500 ¥233 ∂845 Guaranteed loans subsidy ................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 35,000 ∂35,000 ∂35,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 3,733 2,655 38,500 ∂34,767 ∂35,845 Total, Maritime Administration ..................................................................................................................... 349,071 364,823 393,103 ∂44,032 ∂28,280 
191 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Operational expenses: 

General fund ...................................................................................................................................................... 20,679 21,015 21,015 ∂336 ............................Pipeline Safety Fund ......................................................................................................................................... 638 639 639 ∂1 ............................Pipeline safety information grants to communities ......................................................................................... (998 ) (1,500 ) (1,500 ) (∂502 ) ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 21,317 21,654 21,654 ∂337 ............................

Hazardous materials safety ....................................................................................................................................... 42,253 45,801 45,000 ∂2,747 ¥801 

Offsetting fee collections .................................................................................................................................. ............................ ¥6,000 ............................ ............................ ∂6,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 42,253 39,801 45,000 ∂2,747 ∂5,199 

Pipeline safety: 

Pipeline Safety Fund ......................................................................................................................................... 90,498 133,000 130,854 ∂40,356 ¥2,146 Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund ............................................................................................................................. 18,536 18,573 18,573 ∂37 ............................Pipeline safety design review fee ..................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥2,000 ¥2,000 ¥2,000 ............................Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund ................................................................................................................. ............................ 2,000 2,000 ∂2,000 ............................Pipeline safety user fees ................................................................................................................................... ¥91,136 ¥133,639 ¥131,493 ¥40,357 ∂2,146 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 17,898 17,934 17,934 ∂36 ............................

Emergency preparedness grants: 

Limitation on emergency preparedness fund ................................................................................................... (28,130 ) (28,130 ) (28,130 ) ............................ ............................

(Emergency preparedness fund) .............................................................................................................. (188 ) (188 ) (188 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ........................................................ 81,468 79,389 84,588 ∂3,120 ∂5,199 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

Research and development ........................................................................................................................................ 15,949 ............................ ............................ ¥15,949 ............................

Office of Inspector General 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 79,465 85,605 86,605 ∂7,140 ∂1,000 

Surface Transportation Board 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 29,254 30,775 32,250 ∂2,996 ∂1,475 

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ............................ ............................

Total, Surface Transportation Board ............................................................................................................ 28,004 29,525 31,000 ∂2,996 ∂1,475 Total, title I, Department of Transportation ................................................................................................. 17,909,419 16,294,656 18,646,453 ∂737,034 ∂2,351,797 
192 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2013 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2013 appropriation Budget estimate 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (17,909,419 ) (16,747,406 ) (18,777,934 ) (∂868,515 ) (∂2,030,528 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ (¥2,750 ) (¥131,481 ) (¥131,481 ) (¥128,731 ) Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ ............................ (¥450,000 ) ............................ ............................ (∂450,000 ) 

Limitations on obligations ............................................................................................................................ (52,652,484 ) (59,417,750 ) (53,496,000 ) (∂843,516 ) (¥5,921,750 ) 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Management and Administration 

Executive Offices ........................................................................................................................................................ ............................ 14,540 ............................ ............................ ¥14,540 Administration, operations, and management .......................................................................................................... 536,713 ............................ 521,375 ¥15,338 ∂521,375 Administration Support Offices .................................................................................................................................. ............................ 505,313 ............................ ............................ ¥505,313 Program Office Salaries and Expenses: 

Public and Indian Housing ............................................................................................................................... 199,600 220,299 212,000 ∂12,400 ¥8,299 Community Planning and Development ............................................................................................................ 99,800 109,740 107,000 ∂7,200 ¥2,740 Housing .............................................................................................................................................................. 390,717 383,375 390,000 ¥717 ∂6,625 Policy Development and Research .................................................................................................................... 22,167 21,687 23,000 ∂833 ∂1,313 Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ................................................................................................................ 72,455 76,504 75,000 ∂2,545 ¥1,504 Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control .......................................................................................... 7,385 7,642 7,642 ∂257 ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 792,124 819,247 814,642 ∂22,518 ¥4,605 Total, Management and Administration ....................................................................................................... 1,328,837 1,339,100 1,336,017 ∂7,180 ¥3,083 

Public and Indian Housing 

Tenant-based rental assistance: 

Renewals ........................................................................................................................................................... 17,207,866 17,968,278 17,568,278 ∂360,412 ¥400,000 Tenant protection vouchers ............................................................................................................................... 74,850 150,000 150,000 ∂75,150 ............................Administrative fees ........................................................................................................................................... 1,372,250 1,685,374 1,685,374 ∂313,124 ............................Family self-sufficiency coordinators ................................................................................................................. 59,880 ............................ ............................ ¥59,880 ............................Veterans affairs supportive housing ................................................................................................................. 74,850 75,000 78,000 ∂3,150 ∂3,000 
193 

Section 811 mainstream voucher renewals ...................................................................................................... 111,794 110,564 110,564 ¥1,230 ............................

Subtotal (available this fiscal year) ............................................................................................................ 18,901,490 19,989,216 19,592,216 ∂690,726 ¥397,000 

Advance appropriations ..................................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 ............................ ............................Less appropriations from prior year advances ................................................................................................. ¥3,992,000 ¥4,000,000 ¥4,000,000 ¥8,000 ............................

Total, Tenant-based rental assistance appropriated in this bill ................................................................ 18,909,490 19,989,216 19,592,216 ∂682,726 ¥397,000 

Rental assistance demonstration program ................................................................................................................ ............................ 10,000 10,000 ∂10,000 ............................Public Housing Capital Fund ..................................................................................................................................... 1,871,250 2,000,000 2,000,000 ∂128,750 ............................Public Housing Operating Fund ................................................................................................................................. 4,253,486 4,600,000 4,600,000 ∂346,514 ............................Choice neighborhoods ................................................................................................................................................ 119,760 400,000 250,000 ∂130,240 ¥150,000 Family self-sufficiency ............................................................................................................................................... ............................ 75,000 75,000 ∂75,000 ............................Native American housing block grants ...................................................................................................................... 648,700 650,000 675,000 ∂26,300 ∂25,000 Native Hawaiian housing block grant ....................................................................................................................... 12,974 13,000 13,000 ∂26 ............................Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account ............................................................................................ 12,176 6,000 6,000 ¥6,176 ............................

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (976,000 ) (1,818,000 ) (1,818,000 ) (∂842,000 ) ............................

Native Hawaiian loan guarantee fund program account .......................................................................................... 385 ............................ 385 ............................ ∂385 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (41,504 ) ............................ (41,500 ) (¥4 ) (∂41,500 ) 

Total, Public and Indian Housing ................................................................................................................. 25,828,221 27,743,216 27,221,601 ∂1,393,380 ¥521,615 

Community Planning and Development 

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS ............................................................................................................ 331,336 332,000 332,000 ∂664 ............................Community development fund: 

CDBG formula .................................................................................................................................................... 3,241,594 2,798,100 3,150,000 ¥91,594 ∂351,900 Indian CDBG ...................................................................................................................................................... 59,880 70,000 70,000 ∂10,120 ............................Integrated planning and investment grants .................................................................................................... ............................ 75,000 75,000 ∂75,000 ............................Neighborhood stabilization Initiative ................................................................................................................ ............................ 200,000 ............................ ............................ ¥200,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 3,301,474 3,143,100 3,295,000 ¥6,474 ∂151,900 

Community development loan guarantees (section 108): 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (240,000 ) (500,000 ) (500,000 ) (∂260,000 ) ............................Credit subsidy ................................................................................................................................................... 5,940 ............................ ............................ ¥5,940 ............................

Capacity building ....................................................................................................................................................... ............................ 20,000 ............................ ............................ ¥20,000 HOME investment partnerships program ................................................................................................................... 998,000 950,000 1,000,000 ∂2,000 ∂50,000 Self-help and assisted homeownership opportunity program ................................................................................... 53,393 ............................ 53,500 ∂107 ∂53,500 Homeless assistance grants ...................................................................................................................................... 2,028,934 2,381,000 2,261,190 ∂232,256 ¥119,810 
194 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2013 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2013 appropriation Budget estimate 

Total, Community Planning and Development ............................................................................................. 6,719,077 6,826,100 6,941,690 ∂222,613 ∂115,590 

Housing Programs 

Project-based rental assistance: 

Renewals ........................................................................................................................................................... 9,032,571 10,007,000 10,507,000 ∂1,474,429 ∂500,000 Contract administrators .................................................................................................................................... 288,422 265,000 265,000 ¥23,422 ............................

Subtotal (available this fiscal year) ............................................................................................................ 9,320,993 10,272,000 10,772,000 ∂1,451,007 ∂500,000 

Advance appropriations ..................................................................................................................................... 400,000 400,000 400,000 ............................ ............................Less appropriations from prior year advances ................................................................................................. ¥399,200 ¥400,000 ¥400,000 ¥800 ............................

Total, Project-based rental assistance appropriated in this bill ................................................................ 9,321,793 10,272,000 10,772,000 ∂1,450,207 ∂500,000 

Housing for the elderly ............................................................................................................................................... 373,878 400,000 400,000 ∂26,122 ............................Housing for persons with disabilities ........................................................................................................................ 164,670 126,000 126,000 ¥38,670 ............................Housing counseling assistance .................................................................................................................................. 44,915 55,000 55,000 ∂10,085 ............................Rental housing assistance ......................................................................................................................................... 1,297 21,000 21,000 ∂19,703 ............................Rent supplement (rescission) .................................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥3,500 ¥3,500 ¥3,500 ............................Manufactured housing fees trust fund ...................................................................................................................... 6,487 7,530 7,530 ∂1,043 ............................

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥3,992 ¥6,530 ¥6,530 ¥2,538 ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 2,495 1,000 1,000 ¥1,495 ............................Total, Housing Programs .............................................................................................................................. 9,909,048 10,871,500 11,371,500 ∂1,462,452 ∂500,000 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (9,913,040 ) (10,881,530 ) (11,381,530 ) (∂1,468,490 ) (∂500,000 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ (¥3,500 ) (¥3,500 ) (¥3,500 ) ............................Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................... (¥3,992 ) (¥6,530 ) (¥6,530 ) (¥2,538 ) ............................
195 

Federal Housing Administration 

Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (400,000,000 ) (400,000,000 ) (400,000,000 ) ............................ ............................(Limitation on direct loans) .............................................................................................................................. (50,000 ) (20,000 ) (20,000 ) (¥30,000 ) ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥9,676,000 ¥10,841,000 ¥10,841,000 ¥1,165,000 ............................Proposed offsetting receipts [HECM] ................................................................................................................ ¥170,000 ¥57,000 ¥57,000 ∂113,000 ............................Administrative contract expenses ..................................................................................................................... 206,586 127,000 198,500 ¥8,086 ∂71,500 

General and Special Risk Program Account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (25,000,000 ) (30,000,000 ) (30,000,000 ) (∂5,000,000 ) ............................(Limitation on direct loans) .............................................................................................................................. (20,000 ) (20,000 ) (20,000 ) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥588,000 ¥926,000 ¥926,000 ¥338,000 ............................

Total, Federal Housing Administration ......................................................................................................... ¥10,227,414 ¥11,697,000 ¥11,625,500 ¥1,398,086 ∂71,500 

Government National Mortgage Association 

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (500,000,000 ) (500,000,000 ) (500,000,000 ) ............................ ............................Administrative expenses .................................................................................................................................... 19,461 21,200 21,200 ∂1,739 ............................Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥100,000 ¥100,000 ¥100,000 ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥647,000 ¥707,000 ¥707,000 ¥60,000 ............................Proposed offsetting receipts [HECM] ................................................................................................................ ¥23,000 ¥12,000 ¥12,000 ∂11,000 ............................Additional contract expenses ............................................................................................................................ ............................ 1,000 1,000 ∂1,000 ............................

Total, Government National Mortgage Association ...................................................................................... ¥750,539 ¥796,800 ¥796,800 ¥46,261 ............................

Policy Development and Research 

Research and technology ........................................................................................................................................... 45,908 50,000 48,000 ∂2,092 ¥2,000 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 

Fair housing activities ............................................................................................................................................... 70,705 71,000 70,000 ¥705 ¥1,000 

Office of Health Homes and Lead Hazard Control 

Lead hazard reduction ............................................................................................................................................... 119,760 120,000 120,000 ∂240 ............................

Management and Administration 

Information Technology Fund ..................................................................................................................................... ............................ 285,100 210,000 ∂210,000 ¥75,100 Working capital fund .................................................................................................................................................. 198,637 ............................ ............................ ¥198,637 ............................

(By transfer) ...................................................................................................................................................... (71,500 ) ............................ (71,500 ) ............................ (∂71,500 ) 
196 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2013 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2013 appropriation Budget estimate 

Office of Inspector General ........................................................................................................................................ 123,752 127,672 127,000 ∂3,248 ¥672 Transformation initiative ............................................................................................................................................ 49,900 ............................ ............................ ¥49,900 ............................

(By transfer) ...................................................................................................................................................... ............................ (80,000 ) (60,000 ) (∂60,000 ) (¥20,000 ) 

Total, Management and Administration ....................................................................................................... 372,289 412,772 337,000 ¥35,289 ¥75,772 Total, Management and Administration ....................................................................................................... (1,701,126 ) (1,751,872 ) (1,673,017 ) (¥28,109 ) (¥78,855 ) Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Development .................................................................. 33,415,892 34,939,888 35,023,508 ∂1,607,616 ∂83,620 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (40,223,884 ) (43,192,918 ) (43,276,538 ) (∂3,052,654 ) (∂83,620 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ (¥3,500 ) (¥3,500 ) (¥3,500 ) ............................Advance appropriations ....................................................................................................................... (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................... (¥11,204,000 ) (¥12,643,000 ) (¥12,643,000 ) (¥1,439,000 ) ............................Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................... (¥3,992 ) (¥6,530 ) (¥6,530 ) (¥2,538 ) ............................

(By transfer) .................................................................................................................................................. (71,500 ) (80,000 ) (131,500 ) (∂60,000 ) (∂51,500 ) (Limitation on direct loans) .......................................................................................................................... (70,000 ) (40,000 ) (40,000 ) (¥30,000 ) ............................(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................................................................................. (926,257,504 ) (932,318,000 ) (932,359,500 ) (∂6,101,996 ) (∂41,500 ) 

TITLE III—OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Access Board .............................................................................................................................................................. 7,385 7,448 7,448 ∂63 ............................Federal Maritime Commission .................................................................................................................................... 24,052 25,000 24,669 ∂617 ¥331 Amtrak Office of Inspector General ........................................................................................................................... 20,459 25,300 21,000 ∂541 ¥4,300 National Transportation Safety Board ........................................................................................................................ 102,195 103,027 103,027 ∂832 ............................Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ................................................................................................................... 214,869 204,100 215,300 ∂431 ∂11,200 United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ................................................................................................ 3,293 3,595 3,595 ∂302 ............................

Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies ................................................................................................. 372,253 368,470 375,039 ∂2,786 ∂6,569 
197 

OTHER APPROPRIATIONS 

Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113–2) 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Facilities and Equipment (emergency) ...................................................................................................................... 30,000 ............................ ............................ ¥30,000 ............................

Federal Highway Administration 

Emergency Relief Program (emergency) .................................................................................................................... 2,022,000 ............................ ............................ ¥2,022,000 ............................

Federal Railroad Administration 

Operating Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (emergency) (Public Law 113–2) .................... 118,000 ............................ ............................ ¥118,000 ............................

Federal Transit Administration 

Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program (emergency) ................................................................................. 10,900,000 ............................ ............................ ¥10,900,000 ............................

Total, Department of Transportation ............................................................................................................ 13,070,000 ............................ ............................ ¥13,070,000 ............................

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Community Planning and Development 

Community Development Fund (emergency) .............................................................................................................. 16,000,000 ............................ ............................ ¥16,000,000 ............................

Other Appropriations ..................................................................................................................................... 29,070,000 ............................ ............................ ¥29,070,000 ............................Grand total (net) ........................................................................................................................................... 80,767,564 51,603,014 54,045,000 ¥26,722,564 ∂2,441,986 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (58,505,556 ) (60,308,794 ) (62,429,511 ) (∂3,923,955 ) (∂2,120,717 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ (¥6,250 ) (¥134,981 ) (¥134,981 ) (¥128,731 ) Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ ............................ (¥450,000 ) ............................ ............................ (∂450,000 ) Advance appropriations ....................................................................................................................... (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) ............................ ............................Emergency appropriations ................................................................................................................... (29,070,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥29,070,000 ) ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................... (¥11,204,000 ) (¥12,643,000 ) (¥12,643,000 ) (¥1,439,000 ) ............................Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................... (¥3,992 ) (¥6,530 ) (¥6,530 ) (¥2,538 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ........................................................................................................................... (52,652,484 ) (59,417,750 ) (53,496,000 ) (∂843,516 ) (¥5,921,750 ) (By transfer) .................................................................................................................................................. 71,500 80,000 131,500 ∂60,000 ∂51,500 

Æ