95–188 PDF 

Calendar No. 138 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 114–75 

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

2016 

JUNE 25, 2015.—Ordered to be printed 

Ms. COLLINS, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted 

the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 2577] 

The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2577) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 

purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 

with an amendment, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do 

pass. 

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2016 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $55,646,000,000 

Amount of 2015 appropriations ............................... 53,772,000,000 

Amount of 2016 budget estimate 1 .......................... 55,346,458,000 

Amount of 2016 House allowance ........................... 55,260,800,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2015 appropriations .......................................... ∂1,874,000,000 

2016 budget estimate ........................................ ∂299,542,000 

House allowance ................................................ ∂385,200,000 1The budget estimate proposed converting $7,303,000,000 associated with certain 

surface transportation programs previously treated as budget authority into obligation limits. The Committee recommendation does not reclassify the funding for these 

programs. 
(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 

Increasing Efficiency ............................................................................................... 6 

Title I: Department of Transportation: 

Office of the Secretary ...................................................................................... 8 

Federal Aviation Administration .................................................................... 27 

Federal Highway Administration .................................................................... 44 

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

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

Federal Railroad Administration .................................................................... 65 

Federal Transit Administration ...................................................................... 75 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ....................................... 83 

Maritime Administration ................................................................................. 84 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ........................... 89 

Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 94 

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

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

Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

Management and Administration ................................................................... 99 

Administrative Support Offices ....................................................................... 101 

Program Offices Salaries and Expenses ......................................................... 104 

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

Community Planning and Development ......................................................... 121 

Housing Programs ............................................................................................ 130 

Federal Housing Administration ..................................................................... 135 

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

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

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ............................................................. 140 

Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes ...................................... 141 

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

Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 143 

General Provisions—Department of Housing and Urban Development ...... 143 

Title III: Independent Agencies: 

Access Board ..................................................................................................... 146 

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

National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Office of Inspector General ...... 147 

National Transportation Safety Board ........................................................... 148 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ....................................................... 149 

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ................................... 150 

Title IV: General Provisions—This Act .................................................................. 152 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 153 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 154 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 154 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 166 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 167 
(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 investments 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 4.7 million low and extremely low-income families and individuals, over half of whom are 

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

gradual elimination of homelessness among veterans. This bill also 

includes funding for competitive grants to communities to support 

transportation infrastructure projects of national or regional importance. 

In the context of overall pressures on spending and the competing priorities that the Committee faces, this bill, as reported, 

provides the proper amount of emphasis on transportation, housing, community development, and other programs and activities 

funded within it. It is consistent with the subcommittee’s allocation 

for fiscal year 2016. 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 2016, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget 

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

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

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

Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports 

and joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. 

This definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget 

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

grants and discretionary grant allocations made through either bill 

or report language. For example, the percentage reductions made 

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

in the budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate 

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

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES 

The Committee includes a provision (section 405) establishing 

the authority by which funding available to the agencies funded by 

this act may be reprogrammed for other purposes. The provision 

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

funds that: 

—creates a new program; 

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

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

been denied or restricted by the Congress; 

—proposes to redirect funds that were directed in such reports 

for a specific activity to a different purpose; 

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

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

—creates, reorganizes, or restructures offices different from the 

congressional budget justifications or the table at the end of 

the Committee report, whichever is more detailed. 

The Committee retains the requirement that each agency submit 

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

authorities provided in this act. Specifically, each agency should 

provide a table for each appropriation with columns displaying the 

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

year enacted level. The table shall delineate the appropriation and 

prior year enacted level both by object class and by PPA, as well 
5 

as identify balances available for use under section 406 of the bill. 

The report must also identify items of special congressional interest. 

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

justification of increases and reductions and the specific impact the 

proposed changes will have on the budget request for the following 

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

The Committee expects each agency to manage its programs and 

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

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

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

notes that when a Department or agency submits a reprogramming 

or transfer request to the Committees on Appropriations and does 

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

responsibility of the Department to reconcile the House and Senate 

differences before proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, 

to consider the request to reprogram funds unapproved. 

The Committee would also like to clarify that this section applies 

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

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

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

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS 

Budget justifications are the primary tool used by the House and 

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

that the format and presentation of budget materials is largely left 

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

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

should consult with your congressional committees beforehand to 

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

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

make appropriate and meaningful funding decisions. 

While the Committee values the inclusion of performance data 

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

2017 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 
6 

a minimum, each agency must also provide adequate justification 

for funding and staffing changes for each individual office and materials that compare programs, projects, and activities that are proposed for fiscal year 2017 to the fiscal year 2016 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 2017 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 2016. Plans to 

achieve these savings in fiscal year 2016 should be submitted to 

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

The Committee is concerned about the millions of taxpayer dollars spent on wasteful printing practices each year and the lack of 

clear printing policies within Federal agencies. While progress has 

been made to better utilize the cloud and digitalize records, little 

progress has been made to reform in-house printing practices. The 

Committee recommends the Departments of Transportation and 

Housing and Urban Development work with Office of Management 

and Budget to reduce printing and reproduction by 34 percent and 

report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

within 60 days after enactment of this Act on what steps have been 

taken to reduce printing volume and costs. The report should specifically identify how much money each agency will be saving. 
(7) 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

The Solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and Authorization of 

Transportation Program.—This year, the Committee is once again 

in the position of recommending funding levels for Federal highway, transit, and highway and truck safety programs without any 

assurances that sufficient balances will be available from the Highway Trust Fund to support these programs, even at the funding 

levels enacted for the current year. Furthermore, the Committee is 

conducting its work without any certainty that the necessary contract authority will be available for the whole of fiscal year 2016. 

The Department of Transportation currently projects that the 

balances of the Highway Trust Fund will reach critical levels in 

July of this year. At that point, the Department expects it will have 

to delay reimbursements to States who have spent their own funds 

on eligible highway projects. Furthermore, both the Department 

and the Congressional Budget Office project that current balances 

will be depleted before the end of fiscal year 2016. 

When the Department of Transportation is forced to delay its reimbursements, the Federal Government has failed to uphold its 

commitments to the State and local governments that rely on these 

transportation programs to support their communities. If we do not 

protect the solvency of the trust fund, then we suddenly leave State 

governments bearing the full cost of these transportation projects. 

Many States are deciding that they cannot rely on the Federal Government this summer. They are bracing for a shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund by delaying construction projects that would have 

supported jobs and improved their transportation systems. 

The funding of most surface transportation programs also relies 

on the availability of contract authority, which expires under current law at the end of July. The Administration has released its 

proposal for authorizing these programs over the next 6 years, and 

the relevant authorizing committees are putting together their legislation. Unfortunately, it is still not clear if the levels of contract 

authority for the next fiscal year will be enacted as part of a multiyear authorization law, a short-term extension that covers all of fiscal year 2016, or a series of short-term extensions that eventually 

cover the whole fiscal year. 

The Committee has spoken on these issues many times in recent 

years. Committee reports have repeatedly called for bringing longterm solvency to the Highway Trust Fund, and for 7 years in a 

row, the Committee has recommended funding levels without 

knowing when the necessary contract authority would be enacted. 

In order to put forward realistic funding recommendations, the 

Committee is assuming that authorization for transportation programs will be extended through fiscal year 2016 at the levels au-
8 

thorized for fiscal year 2015. This assumption is consistent with recent extensions of the transportation programs. This assumption is 

especially relevant for those programs that rely on contract authority provided in the authorization acts, including the Federal-aid 

Highways program, the formula and bus transit programs, the programs of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and 

most funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

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]. OST is comprised of 

the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary immediate and support offices; the Office of the General Counsel; the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Transportation for Policy, including the offices of the 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs and the 

Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy; four Assistant Secretarial offices for Budget and Programs, Governmental Affairs, Research and Technology, and Administration; and the Offices of Public Affairs, the Executive Secretariat, Small and Disadvantaged 

Business Utilization, Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response, and Chief Information Officer. OST also includes the Department’s Office of Civil Rights and the Department’s Working 

Capital Fund. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $105,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 113,657,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 93,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 110,738,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation finances the costs of policy development and 

central supervisory and coordinating functions necessary for the 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $110,738,000 for salaries 

and expenses of OST, including $60,000 for reception and representation expenses. The recommendation is $2,919,000 less than the 

budget request and $5,738,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The accompanying bill stipulates that none of the funding provided may be used for the position of Assistant Secretary for 

Public Affairs. In addition, the request to fund a new Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Innovative Finance is denied. 

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. 
9 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and the 

budget request: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2015 enacted 2016 estimate 

Office of the Secretary ................................................................... $2,696,000 $2,734,000 $2,734,000 

Office of the Deputy Secretary ...................................................... 1,011,000 1,025,000 1,025,000 

Office of the General Counsel ....................................................... 19,900,000 20,609,000 20,109,000 

Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy ........... 9,800,000 11,796,000 10,141,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs ........ 12,500,000 13,867,000 13,867,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs ......... 2,500,000 2,546,000 2,546,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration .................... 25,365,000 27,611,000 27,411,000 

Office of Public Affairs .................................................................. 2,000,000 2,029,000 2,029,000 

Office of the Executive Secretariat ................................................ 1,714,000 1,769,000 1,769,000 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ............. 1,414,000 ............................ 1,434,000 

Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response ........... 10,600,000 10,793,000 10,793,000 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ......................................... 15,500,000 16,880,000 16,880,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Innovative Finance ............. ............................ 2,000,000 ............................

Total .................................................................................. 105,000,000 113,657,000 1 110,738,000 

1 Difference due to rounding. 

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 $2,734,000 for fiscal year 2016 for 

the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation is 

equal to the budget request and $38,000 more than the fiscal year 

2015 enacted level. 

Electronic Cigarettes.—The Committee is concerned about the 

status of a final rule prohibiting the use of electronic cigarettes on 

aircraft, which the Secretary indicated would be published by the 

end of 2014. In order to provide certainty to passengers and crew 

and to better protect consumer health, the Committee directs the 

Department to finalize its proposed rule (Docket No. DOT–OST– 

2011–0044) as quickly as possible. 

Given recent incidences of fires involving electronic cigarettes in 

checked baggage, the Committee is pleased that the Federal Aviation Administration has been working with the International Civil 

Aviation Organization and has issued a safety alert recommending 

that e-cigarettes and related devices not be allowed in checked luggage within the cargo hold of planes. However, the Committee remains concerned about the sufficiency of these measures. The Secretary is directed to report to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment of this act on the 

agency’s progress, and on any additional measures that may be 

warranted or statutory authority that may be required to prevent 

the incidence of fires caused by electronic cigarettes. 

Mobile Wireless Devices.—The Committee remains concerned 

about the Department’s delay in issuing a final rule on voice communication on commercial aircraft. On February 24, 2014, the De-
10 

partment published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Docket No. DOT–OST–2014–0002) regarding the use of mobile 

wireless devices for voice calls on commercial aircraft. The approval 

of voice communication over mobile wireless devices during commercial airline flights would be problematic for many of the nearly 

2 million passengers flying each day and challenging for the airlines. The Committee directs the Department to issue the final rule 

expeditiously and to ensure the rule takes into account the full impact of such communication on consumers and the commercial 

aviation industry. 

Outreach on Construction Jobs.—The Committee remains concerned about the high unemployment rate of the Nation’s construction industry. Despite the efforts of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to increase communication between procurement officers and industry, the Committee believes that local contractors 

very often do not know about nor have the opportunity to compete 

for local construction projects funded in this act. Therefore, the 

Committee directs the Secretary to ensure that regional/district offices responsible for managing or overseeing construction projects 

ensure that local construction industry contractors are informed 

about procurement opportunities and the bidding process. Sharing 

this information is especially important for small businesses, minority-owned businesses, and women-owned businesses. The Committee requests a clear outreach plan from the Secretary no later 

than 90 days after enactment of this act. This plan should modernize traditional outreach methods and include best practices for 

grant recipients to reach a broader group of local contractors. 

Equipage loan guarantee.—Section 221 of the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012 proposed a loan guarantee program to 

equip aircraft with the avionics required to meet the mandate that 

all aircraft be equipped with ‘‘ADS–B Out’’ avionics by 2020. The 

Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation to work with 

stakeholders to evaluate how such a loan guarantee program can 

address the outstanding need for general aviation avionics upgrades required to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, the Secretary is directed to provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that outlines the policies, procedures, 

and organizational structure required to establish such a loan 

guarantee program no later than 180 days after enactment of this 

act. 

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 $1,025,000 for the Immediate Office 

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

$14,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 
11 

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 and the final authority on all legal questions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $20,109,000 for expenses of the Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2016. The recommended 

funding level is $500,000 less than the budget request and 

$209,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

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 $10,141,000 for the Office of the 

Under Secretary for Policy. The recommended funding level is 

$1,655,000 less than the budget request and $341,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The request to fund a new Office 

of Safety Oversight is denied. Instead, funding is provided directly 

to the operating modes to address critical safety needs. 

Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study.—The bill 

includes a provision that requires the Secretary to transmit to Congress the final Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits 

Study, as mandated by MAP–21, within 30 days of enactment of 

this act. The Office of the Under Secretary’s allocation will be reduced by $100,000 each day the submission does not meet the 

deadline. The Committee is disappointed that the Department released the long overdue Technical Reports with the finding that 

there is minimal data to inform Congress as it pursues a new highway reauthorization. DOT’s assertion that the limited amount of 

data available inhibits their efforts to conclusively evaluate the effects of changing allowable truck size and weight limits is particularly striking because these same reasons were made in the 2000 

‘‘Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight’’ report, 15 years ago. The 

Committee notes, however, that the Department’s study covers a 

range of issues and that the amount and quality of the data varies 

across these topics. For example, within the Technical Reports, the 

Department does identify certain productivity and environmental 
12 

benefits of increasing weight and size limits. The Committee expects all valid technical information to be taken into consideration 

prior to submitting the final report to Congress. The Committee 

also directs the Secretary to identify which elements of the research are valid based on data availability and the soundness of 

the study methodology as determined by the Transportation Research Board peer-review committee’s recommendation. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs serves as the 

Chief Financial Officer for the Department and provides leadership 

on all financial management matters. The primary responsibilities 

of this office include ensuring the development and justification of 

the Department’s annual budget submissions for consideration by 

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

is also responsible for the proper execution and accountability of 

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

Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $13,867,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The recommended level 

is equal to the budget request and $1,367,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2015 enacted level. The Committee recommendation includes 

funding to assist the Department in complying with the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. The bill includes language requiring quarterly status updates of all pending congressional reports and requires reports to Congress to be provided in electronic 

format. 

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 decision making process. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $2,546,000 for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The recommended level is equal to the budget request and $46,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 
13 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $27,411,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding 

level is $200,000 less than the budget request and $2,046,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

inquiries on the Department’s programs and other 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 $2,029,000 for the Office of Public 

Affairs, which is equal to the budget request and $29,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and the Deputy 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,769,000 for the Executive Secretariat. The recommendation is equal to the budget request and 

$55,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization has 

primary responsibility for providing policy direction for small and 

disadvantaged business participation in the Department’s procure-
14 

ment 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 $1,434,000 for the Office of Small 

and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, which is $20,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Committee recommendation is equal to the budget request; however, the Committee rejects the request to merge the Office with the Minority 

Business Outreach. 

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 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 $10,793,000 for the Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response. The recommendation is 

equal to the budget request and $193,000 more than the fiscal year 

2015 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Chief Information Officer [OCIO] serves as the 

principal adviser to the Secretary on matters involving information 

technology, cybersecurity, privacy, and records management. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $16,880,000, which is equal to the budget request and $1,380,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 en-
15 

acted level. The Committee encourages the OCIO to perform periodic automated inventories of software licenses in use across the 

Department. As such, the OCIO should compare those usage numbers to the Department’s purchased licenses and seek to increase 

efficiency wherever it identifies discrepancies. The OCIO is to consider using this information to obtain Department-wide acquisitions as opposed to component-specific purchases of licenses. The 

OCIO shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the results of these reviews within 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this act. 

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $13,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 14,582,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 11,386,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology has taken over the responsibilities previously held by the 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration. The responsibilities include coordinating, facilitating, and reviewing the Department’s research and development programs and activities; coordinating and developing positioning, navigation and timing 

[PNT] technology; maintaining PNT policy, coordination and spectrum management; managing the Nationwide Differential Global 

Positioning System; and overseeing and providing direction to the 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the Intelligent Transportation 

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

and the Transportation Safety Institute. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,000,000 for 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology. 

This amount is $1,582,000 less than the budget request, and equal 

to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the budget 

request and the fiscal year 2015 enacted level: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2015 enacted 2016 estimate 

Salaries and Administrative Expenses .......................................... $4,782,000 $6,364,000 $4,782,000 

Research, Development and Technology Coordination .................. 509,000 509,000 509,000 

Alternative Energy Research and Development ............................. 499,000 499,000 499,000 

Positioning, Navigation and Timing .............................................. 1,610,000 1,610,000 1,610,000 

Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System ....................... 5,600,000 5,600,000 5,600,000 

Total .................................................................................. 13,000,000 14,582,000 13,000,000 

University Transportation Centers.—The Committee continues to 

support University Transportation Centers, which is funded 

through the Federal Highway Administration. Under the Committee recommendation, University Transportation Centers will 
16 

continue to receive the levels authorized under 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 leads the Department’s SBIR program due to its extensive 

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

involving a cross-section of the transportation community, and 

technical assistance to private organizations and State and local 

governments. The Committee recognizes the importance of the 

SBIR program and its success in commercialization from Federal 

funded research and development projects. Through its work, the 

SBIR program creates jobs in the smallest firms. The Committee 

therefore encourages the Department to place an increased focus on 

awarding SBIR awards to firms with fewer than 50 people. In addition, the Committee directs the Department to take steps to ensure 

that SBIR spending levels meet or exceed statutory requirements. 

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $500,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 1 ......................................................................... 1,250,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 100,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 500,000,000 

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

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 $500,000,000 for grants 

and credit assistance for investment in significant transportation 

projects, which is equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The 

administration assumed that this program would be funded as a 

part of comprehensive legislation to reauthorize surface transportation programs, and classified the funding as mandatory spending. 

The Committee, however, does not expect the enactment of legislation that funds this program on the mandatory side of the budget, 

and therefore provides its funding recommendation in order to continue investment in these important transportation projects. 

Planning Activities.—The Committee recommendation allows up 

to $25,000,000 to be used for the planning, preparation or design 

of projects eligible for funding under this heading. 
17 

Protections for Rural Areas.—The Committee continues to believe 

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

to require the Secretary to award grants and credit assistance in 

a manner that ensures an equitable geographic distribution of 

funds and an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban 

and rural communities. 

Investing in infrastructure in rural America is extremely important for growing the economy, increasing exports and expanding 

markets. For this reason, the Committee also set aside no less than 

30 percent of the program’s funding for projects located in rural 

areas, and included specific provisions to match grant requirements 

with the needs of rural areas. Specifically, the Committee has lowered the minimum size of a grant awarded to a rural area and increased the Federal share of the total project cost. 

Port Infrastructure.—The Committee recognizes the important 

role that ports play in our Nation’s transportation network. With 

the prediction that the volume of trade through our Nation’s ports 

will substantially increase in the next decade, our Nation’s infrastructure will be challenged to accommodate the increase in the 

movement of freight. Growth at our Nation’s ports simultaneously 

increases demand on our transportation systems. Therefore, the 

Committee continues to identify inland ports as eligible recipients 

of this program and directs the Secretary to take into consideration, when selecting recipients, the annual tonnage, existing terminal capacity, and potential economic benefits of improvements or 

expansion of inland ports. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

The initiative includes upgrading and enhancing the commercial 

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is recommending $5,000,000 to complete the Secretary’s Financial Management Capital initiative, which is equal to 

the budget request and the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 8,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 7,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,000,000 
18 

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 $8,000,000 to support 

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

budget request and $3,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $9,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 9,678,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 9,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,678,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

formulating civil rights policies and procedures for the operating 

administrations, investigating claims that small businesses were 

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

civil rights responsibilities and making final determinations on 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a funding level of $9,678,000 for the 

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

request and $78,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $6,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 10,019,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,976,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Secretary performs those research activities and 

studies which can more effectively or appropriately be conducted at 

the departmental level. This research effort supports the planning, 

research, and development activities needed to assist the Secretary 

in the formulation of national transportation policies. The program 

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

private firms. 
19 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for Transportation Planning, Research, and Development, which is $4,019,000 less than 

the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

Transportation at Every Age.—The Committee is aware the Secretary has engaged in a number of initiatives and partnerships 

with States and communities to encourage and facilitate planning 

and development that take into account the needs of all transportation system users in order to create environments that are safe 

for people of all ages. The Committee encourages the Secretary to 

continue providing research on best practices, outreach and technical assistance to communities that seek to create or enhance 

their transportation systems so that the elderly have a realistic option to age in their homes with access to services and recreation 

and young people may safely walk or bike to school. 

INTERAGENCY INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING IMPROVEMENT CENTER

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $4,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Department’s Interagency Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Center [IIPIC] is responsible for improving performance 

of Federal permitting and review of infrastructure projects in order 

to reduce the aggregate time required for the Federal Government 

to make decisions in the permitting and review of infrastructure 

projects. This includes the management, improvement and expansion of the Administration’s permitting dashboard, as well as implementation of other government-wide reforms. The IIPIC will develop and deploy information technology tools to track project 

schedules and metrics and improve the transparency and accountability of the permitting process. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the Interagency Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Center, which is equal to the 

budget request and $4,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

The Committee supports efforts to modernize the project review 

and permitting process to maximize efficiency through government 

wide coordination. The Administration’s preliminary use of dashboard technologies and targeted interagency coordination on more 

than 50 projects has demonstrated the ability to accelerate project 

approval timelines. For example, the environmental review process 

for the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement was completed in 18 

months versus the 3 to 5 years that would be expected under traditional practices. These efforts will support the expansion of the 

dashboard and increase the number of projects that can be expedited through implementation of these and other best practices. 

The resources provided in the bill should be used only for transportation projects, including supporting interagency coordination to 
20 

make the review of transportation projects more efficient and effective, but the Committee supports the use of the dashboard and 

other process reforms for non-transportation projects contingent on 

resource contributions from other agencies that support such 

projects. 

The Committee directs the Department to transmit an annual report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations describing how the IIPIC has reduced aggregate time for Federal permitting and review of infrastructure projects government-wide. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2015 ..................................................................................... $181,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... 181,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 190,039,000 

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 $190,039,000 on activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The recommended limit is $8,539,000 more than the limit enacted for fiscal year 2015. The Department requested that no limitation be included for fiscal year 2016. 

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

Working Capital Fund shall apply only to the Department and not 

to services provided for other entities. The Committee directs services to 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 2016 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 

2017. 

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriations Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................................................... $925,000 $18,367,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................................................... 933,000 ........................

House allowance ..................................................................................................................... 933,000 18,367,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................................................... 933,000 18,367,000 
21 

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 $336,000 to 

cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $597,000 for administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan program. 

These recommended levels provide a total funding level of $933,000 

for the Minority Business Resource Center. This total funding level 

is equal to the budget request and $8,000 more than the fiscal year 

2015 enacted level. The Committee also recommends a limitation 

on guaranteed loans of $18,367,000, equal to the fiscal year 2015 

enacted level. 

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $3,099,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 4,518,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,518,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,084,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides contractual support to assist small, 

women-owned, Native American, and other disadvantaged business 

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

provided for these activities since this program provides grants and 

contract assistance that serve Department-wide goals and not just 

OST purposes. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,084,000 for grants and contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year 2016, 

which is $15,000 less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The 

request included an additional $1,434,000 from funding that has 

traditionally been provided as part of the Salaries and Expenses 

appropriation. However, the Committee rejects this approach, fully 

funding the request through a combination of the funds provided 

under the Minority Business Outreach heading plus $1,434,000 

provided under Salaries and Expenses. 
22 

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

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

Appropriations Mandatory Total 

Appropriation, 2015 ................................................................................... $155,000,000 $108,200,000 $263,200,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 .............................................................................. 175,000,000 108,400,000 283,400,000 

House allowance ........................................................................................ 155,000,000 108,400,000 263,400,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 175,000,000 108,400,000 283,400,000 

The Committee recommends the appropriation of $175,000,000 

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

an estimated $108,400,000 of overflight fees collected by the FAA, 

allowing the Department to support a total program level for EAS 

of $283,400,000. 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 $20,200,000 more than the total 

program level enacted for fiscal year 2015; the total program level 

enacted for that year was comprised of an appropriation of 

$155,000,000 plus $108,200,000 in overflight fees. 

Proximity to the Nearest Hub Airport.—The Committee continues 

to include a provision that prohibits the Department from entering 

into a new contract with an EAS community located less than 40 

miles from the nearest hub airport before the Secretary has negotiated with the community over a local cost share. 

Aircraft Size Requirement.—The Committee continues to include 

a provision that removes the requirement for 15-passenger seat aircraft. This requirement adds to the cost of the EAS program because the fleet of 15-passenger seat aircraft continues to age and 

grow more difficult for airlines to maintain. The Committee, however, expects that the Department will use this flexibility judiciously. The Department should use it for communities where historical passenger levels indicate that smaller aircraft would still accommodate the great majority of passengers, or for communities 

where viable proposals for service are not available. The Committee 

does not expect the Department to use this flexibility simply to 

lower costs if a community can show regular enplanement levels 

that would justify larger aircraft. 
23 

Passenger Levels and Subsidy Rates.—The following table reflects the points in the continental United States currently receiving EAS service, their annual subsidy rates, and their level of subsidy per passenger. 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER 

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 

12/31/14 

Subsidy per 

passenger at 

4/1/15 

AL Muscle Shoals ................................. 60 4.4 $1,739,308 2,763 $629 

AR ElDorado/Camden ............................ 117 11.3 1,977,153 7,064 280 

AR Harrison ........................................... 86 13.9 2,251,207 8,708 259 

AR Hot Springs ...................................... 51 7.9 1,637,012 4,965 330 

AR Jonesboro ......................................... 82 15.2 1,942,890 9,493 205 

AZ Kingman .......................................... 121 1.3 1,635,180 787 2,078 

AZ Page ................................................. 282 12.4 2,472,028 7,767 318 

AZ Prescott ............................................ 102 12.3 2,094,325 7,726 271 

AZ Show Low ......................................... 154 5.9 1,672,000 3,701 452 

CA Crescent City ................................... 231 42.7 2,454,084 26,758 92 

CA El Centro .......................................... 101 7.5 1,943,751 4,698 414 

CA Merced ............................................. 60 6.9 2,779,116 4,305 646 

CA Visalia .............................................. 47 5.3 1,990,563 3,332 597 

CO Alamosa ........................................... 164 12.3 2,192,179 7,699 285 

CO Cortez ............................................... 255 12.3 2,270,297 7,670 296 

CO Pueblo .............................................. 36 14.1 1,737,732 8,815 197 

GA Macon .............................................. 36 3.2 1,998,696 2,017 991 

IA Burlington ........................................ 74 20.7 1,917,566 12,984 148 

IA Fort Dodge ....................................... 91 n/a 3,715,953 978 n/a 

IA Mason City ....................................... 131 n/a 3,715,953 1,459 n/a 

IA Sioux City ......................................... 88 77.6 611,434 48,591 13 

IA Waterloo ........................................... 63 72.1 945,546 45,127 21 

IL Decatur ............................................ 126 20.5 2,667,922 12,838 208 

IL Marion/Herrin ................................... 123 31.5 2,104,616 19,698 107 

IL Quincy .............................................. 111 31.4 1,956,856 19,670 99 

KS Dodge City ....................................... 150 10.0 2,339,131 6,253 374 

KS Garden City ...................................... 202 81.9 1,445,172 51,281 28 

KS Great Bend ...................................... 114 n/a 1,445,172 452 n/a 

KS Hays ................................................. 166 18.0 2,253,132 11,261 200 

KS Liberal/Guymon ................................ 138 10.8 2,236,180 6,791 329 

KS Salina .............................................. 97 5.9 1,490,479 3,718 401 

KY Owensboro ....................................... 105 12.0 1,529,913 7,502 204 

KY Paducah ........................................... 146 66.4 2,034,160 41,555 49 

MD Hagerstown ...................................... 78 4.9 1,785,638 3,080 580 

ME Augusta/Waterville ........................... 58 16.9 1,818,106 10,575 172 

ME Bar Harbor ....................................... 157 15.2 1,631,223 9,543 171 

ME Presque Isle/Houlton ........................ 274 38.7 4,710,683 24,234 194 

ME Rockland .......................................... 76 21.5 1,890,918 13,429 141 

MI Alpena .............................................. 174 39.7 2,168,995 24,852 87 

MI Escanaba ......................................... 227 54.6 3,507,011 34,173 103 

MI Hancock/Houghton ........................... 321 73.4 690,976 45,962 15 

MI Iron Mountain/Kingsford .................. 229 35.5 2,970,122 22,198 134 

MI Ironwood/Ashland ............................ 213 8.0 3,563,394 4,993 714 

MI Manistee/Ludington ......................... 233 12.3 2,328,104 7,708 302 

MI Muskegon ......................................... 49 45.1 1,389,952 28,208 49 

MI Pellston ............................................ 213 89.4 1,077,413 55,958 19 

MI Sault Ste. Marie .............................. 347 67.0 1,765,393 41,960 42 

MN Bemidji ............................................ 128 71.2 1,118,050 44,591 25 

MN Brainerd ........................................... 123 53.8 1,671,602 33,682 50 

MN Chisholm/Hibbing ............................ 199 33.1 2,535,502 20,709 122 

MN International Falls ........................... 298 45.8 2,197,037 28,681 77 

MN Thief River Falls .............................. 305 n/a 2,428,750 725 n/a 

MO Cape Girardeau/Sikeston ................. 127 19.7 1,627,966 12,313 132 

MO Fort Leonard Wood ........................... 136 25.3 2,829,158 15,847 179 

MO Joplin ............................................... 167 82.8 519,201 51,802 10 

MO Kirksville .......................................... 137 17.5 1,649,248 10,983 150 
24 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER—Continued 

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 

12/31/14 

Subsidy per 

passenger at 

4/1/15 

MS Greenville ......................................... 124 4.9 1,483,080 3,054 486 

MS Laurel/Hattiesburg ........................... 85 13.8 3,910,654 8,633 453 

MS Meridian ........................................... 84 20.9 3,910,654 13,099 299 

MS Tupelo .............................................. 94 15.0 2,506,436 9,396 267 

MT Butte ................................................ 75 91.9 735,956 57,500 13 

MT Glasgow ........................................... 285 12.2 2,046,800 7,629 268 

MT Glendive ........................................... 223 7.9 1,944,467 4,935 394 

MT Havre ............................................... 230 7.6 2,036,254 4,767 427 

MT Sidney .............................................. 272 35.9 3,777,579 22,484 168 

MT West Yellowstone ............................. 89 47.3 491,205 11,544 43 

MT Wolf Point ........................................ 293 12.4 2,145,326 7,762 276 

ND Devils Lake ...................................... 159 n/a 3,224,917 5,123 n/a 

ND Jamestown ....................................... 92 n/a 3,126,564 8,326 n/a 

NE Alliance ............................................ 233 1.6 1,309,865 1,016 n/a 

NE Chadron ........................................... 290 2.5 1,309,865 1,534 n/a 

NE Grand Island .................................... 138 76.1 1,837,021 47,648 39 

NE Kearney ............................................ 181 27.0 2,993,938 16,920 177 

NE McCook ............................................ 256 n/a 2,254,017 865 n/a 

NE North Platte ..................................... 255 13.3 2,818,163 8,326 338 

NE Scottsbluff ....................................... 192 14.1 2,443,523 8,817 277 

NH Lebanon/White River Jct. ................. 74 33.4 2,972,718 20,905 142 

NM Carlsbad .......................................... 149 5.7 1,397,081 3,537 395 

NM Clovis ............................................... 102 n/a 3,179,857 3,832 n/a 

NM Silver City/Hurley/Deming ................ 134 3.7 3,377,495 2,318 n/a 

NY Jamestown ....................................... 76 10.1 2,045,481 6,293 325 

NY Massena .......................................... 138 14.4 2,608,773 9,035 289 

NY Ogdensburg ..................................... 105 17.2 2,419,820 10,754 225 

NY Plattsburgh ...................................... 82 26.8 2,714,074 16,793 162 

NY Saranac Lake/Lake Placid ............... 132 16.0 1,832,064 10,039 182 

NY Watertown ........................................ 54 61.6 3,356,349 38,551 87 

OR Pendleton ......................................... 185 12.8 1,834,708 8,020 229 

PA Altoona ............................................. 112 10.4 2,346,168 6,518 360 

PA Bradford ........................................... 77 5.8 2,045,826 3,647 561 

PA DuBois ............................................. 112 13.6 2,285,539 8,516 268 

PA Franklin/Oil City ............................... 85 3.3 1,442,788 2,062 700 

PA Johnstown ........................................ 84 14.9 2,438,254 9,350 261 

PA Lancaster ......................................... 28 6.5 2,504,174 4,045 619 

SD Aberdeen .......................................... 176 83.7 1,043,719 52,383 20 

SD Huron ............................................... 121 3.2 2,552,000 1,996 n/a 

SD Watertown ........................................ 102 6.2 2,847,284 3,857 738 

TN Jackson ............................................ 86 5.3 1,584,275 3,340 474 

TX Victoria ............................................ 93 7.0 2,288,152 4,381 522 

UT Cedar City ........................................ 179 41.7 2,317,439 26,121 89 

UT Moab ................................................ 256 21.0 2,303,347 13,170 175 

UT Vernal .............................................. 150 12.9 1,415,696 8,077 175 

VA Staunton .......................................... 113 30.0 1,980,922 18,776 106 

VT Rutland ............................................ 69 17.3 1,360,481 10,806 126 

WI Eau Claire ........................................ 92 58.8 1,546,536 36,809 42 

WI Rhinelander ..................................... 190 69.8 2,050,889 43,714 47 

WV Beckley ............................................. 168 10.2 2,696,888 6,369 423 

WV Clarksburg/Fairmont ........................ 96 17.0 2,310,252 10,646 217 

WV Greenbrier/W.Sulphur Sps ................ 162 25.3 3,582,194 15,837 226 

WV Morgantown ..................................... 75 29.0 2,342,074 18,149 129 

WV Parkersburg/Marietta ....................... 110 17.2 3,505,074 10,766 326 

WY Cody ................................................. 106 101.8 1,380,779 63,709 22 

WY Laramie ............................................ 145 38.8 2,078,554 24,300 86 

WY Worland ............................................ 161 3.6 2,327,987 2,277 n/a 
25 

SAFE TRANSPORTATION OF ENERGY PRODUCTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $5,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Safe Transportation of Energy Products program would provide oversight and coordination of multi-modal prevention and response activities associated with the safe transportation of energy 

products. It would ensure that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, 

and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration share best 

practices, provide consistent strategic direction across the country, 

keep each other informed of the latest developments, and coordinate safety practices throughout the transportation process. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend providing a new appropriation for the Office of the Secretary to support the transportation of 

energy products as proposed in the budget request. The Committee 

has instead recommended funding through the regular appropriations to the agencies that are directly responsible for ensuring the 

safe transportation of energy products, such as the Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Federal Railroad 

Administration, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Funding provided directly to the agencies will assist the Secretary in providing a comprehensive prevention, mitigation, and response safety strategy for the shipment of energy products. 

DATA ACT COMPLIANCE

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $3,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The DATA Act Compliance program would implement Government-wide data standards for financial data to provide consistent, 

reliable, and searchable spending data for easy public consumption, 

as required by the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. 

The program would assess the level of system modifications necessary to capture the information required by the DATA Act as 

well as review current business processes/certifications and establish a consistent, repeatable process needed to improve financial 

data quality and accuracy. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend providing a new appropriation for a DATA Act Compliance program as proposed in the budget request. Instead, the Committee has provided additional funding 

to the Department’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget 

and Programs to assist with compliance with the DATA Act. 
26 

U.S. DIGITAL SERVICES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $9,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The U.S. Digital Services program would focus on transforming 

the Department’s digital services that have the greatest impact on 

citizens and businesses. A team of digital service experts would 

apply private sector best practices in the disciplines of design, software engineering, and product management to the Department’s 

most important services. The team would focus on accelerating current programs/projects; enhancing partnerships and information 

sharing with other agencies; building or improving external and internal facing services; and improving stakeholder and data management tools. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend providing a new appropriation for the U.S. Digital Services program. Under current budgetary constraints, the Committee cannot afford to dedicate funding 

to a new digital services team. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF

TRANSPORTATION

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

reprogramming of funds, including congressional notification. 

Section 102 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation or his 

designee to engage in activities with States and State legislatures 

to consider proposals related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities. 

Section 103 allows the Department of Transportation to make 

use of the Working Capital Fund in providing transit benefits to 

Federal employees. 

Section 104 places simple administrative requirements on the 

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

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

minutes of each meeting. 

Section 105 limits the Department of Transportation’s ability to 

finalize or implement certain sections of the proposed regulation 

issued in the Federal Register on May 23, 2014, relating to Transparency of Airline Ancillary Fees and Other Consumer Protection 

Issues. 
27 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for the safe 

movement of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system 

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

Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 

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

to navigation; arrange for research and development to improve 

such aids; issue airworthiness certificates for aircraft and major 

aircraft components; and investigate civil aviation accidents. In the 

Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, these activities were transferred to 

a new, independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority. 

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

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

Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] 

and became one of several modal administrations within DOT. The 

Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of 

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

Responsibility for the investigation of civil aviation accidents was 

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The total recommended funding level for the FAA for fiscal year 

2016 amounts to $16,011,143,000 including new budget authority 

and a limitation on the obligation of contract authority. This funding level is $175,143,000 more than the budget request and 

$293,693,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for fiscal year 2016 in comparison to the budget request, the 

fiscal year 2015 enacted level and the House allowance: 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2015 enacted 2016 estimate House allowance 

Operations ............................................. $9,740,700,000 $9,915,000,000 $9,844,700,000 $9,897,818,000 

Facilities and equipment ...................... 2,600,000,000 2,855,000,000 2,503,000,000 2,600,000,000 

Research, engineering, and development ................................................. 156,750,000 166,000,000 156,750,000 163,325,000 

Grants-in-aid to airports (obligation 

limitation) ......................................... 3,350,000,000 2,900,000,000 3,350,000,000 3,350,000,000 

Rescissions ........................................... 260,000,000 .............................. .............................. ..............................

Total ........................................ 15,717,450,000 15,836,000,000 15,854,450,000 16,011,143,000 
28 

OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $9,740,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 9,915,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 9,844,700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,897,818,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

activities: 

—the Air Traffic Organization which operates, on a 24-hour daily 

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

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

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

and development of standards, rules and regulations governing 

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

an Aviation Medical Research Program; 

—the Office of Commercial Space Transportation; and 

—headquarters and support offices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $9,897,818,000 for FAA 

Operations. This funding level is $17,182,000 less than the budget 

request, and $157,118,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted 

level. The Committee recommendation derives $8,180,000,000 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 2015 enacted level: 

FAA OPERATIONS 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2015 enacted 2016 estimate 

Air traffic organization ............................................................ $7,396,654,000 $7,505,293,000 $7,505,293,000 

Aviation safety ......................................................................... 1,218,458,000 1,258,411,000 1,258,411,000 

Commercial space transportation ........................................... 16,605,000 18,114,000 17,425,000 

Finance and Management ....................................................... 756,047,000 764,969,000 748,969,000 

NextGen Operations and Planning ........................................... 60,089,000 60,582,000 60,089,000 

Security and hazardous materials safety ................................ 88,672,000 1 100,880,000 100,880,000 
29 

FAA OPERATIONS—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2015 enacted 2016 estimate 

Staff offices ............................................................................. 204,175,000 1 206,751,000 206,751,000 

Total ............................................................................ 9,740,700,000 9,915,000,000 9,897,818,000 

1 In the 2015 Consolidated Appropriations Act, funding for security and hazardous materials safety was provided within staff offices for a 

total of $292,847,000. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reform.—The authorization for FAA’s programs and activities is set to expire on September 30, 2015, and a key issue in the reauthorization debate is 

whether to reform the structure of the FAA. It has been argued 

that the Air Traffic Organization [ATO] should be taken out of the 

FAA and made exempt from the appropriations process so that it 

can act independently and exert control over its budgetary resources. Some have even suggested that other lines of business— 

such as Aviation Safety—should follow ATO out of the agency in 

order to maintain the level of coordination that is crucial to implementing NextGen. 

The Committee, however, cannot agree that the public is served 

by exempting any part of the FAA from annual congressional oversight. The appropriations process provides the annual oversight of 

agency resources that is necessary to ensure accountability on program performance and a sustained focus on aviation safety. Congressional oversight also ensures that the FAA maintains a system 

that works across the aviation industry, including general aviation, 

small and rural communities as well as commercial airlines and 

large metropolitan cities. 

The Committee would therefore oppose legislation to put the 

FAA or parts of the FAA on funding autopilot. The Committee believes that splintering the FAA and exempting certain lines of business from the appropriations process would limit congressional 

oversight, reduce air traffic services for small communities, restrict 

opportunities for public input, and negatively impact the cost of air 

traffic for the consumer. 

Hiring Air Traffic Controllers.—Just over a year ago, the FAA 

made important reforms to the way it hires air traffic controllers. 

However, as the Committee noted at the time, the FAA failed to 

reach out to all of its stakeholder groups—including training programs—to inform its decisions. The Committee therefore reiterates 

its expectation that the FAA will invite the input of all of its stakeholders when considering significant changes to the hiring process 

for air traffic controllers. In addition, the Committee encourages 

the FAA to consider the value of such training programs and the 

role they can play in building the next workforce of aviation professionals. 

Contract Towers.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$154,400,000 for the contract tower program, including the costshare contract towers. This total funding level is sufficient to cover 

all towers that will be operating during fiscal year 2016. Current 

law limits contributions in the contract tower cost share program 

to 20 percent of total costs. 
30 

Aircraft Certification Process Review and Reform.—The FAA 

must provide an aircraft certification system that effectively and efficiently processes new aviation products and technologies. This 

system must include a fuller utilization of organizational designation authorization, more effective safety oversight, better workforce 

training, and meaningful performance metrics. 

Achieving these goals must be one of the FAA’s highest priorities, and the Committee expects the FAA to document its progress. 

This past year, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations directed the FAA to submit a report on measures of effectiveness that the agency is using as it expands the use of delegated authority and a risk-based, systems safety approach to its oversight. 

The FAA was directed to include in this report its progress in relying more fully on delegated authorities and toward a systems safety approach; how regularly the FAA will collect data and how it 

will be used to improve FAA’s process over time; the extent to 

which FAA has modified its personnel expectations and its training 

course content to communicate changes to field offices; and the extent to which Advisory and Rulemaking Committee members were 

consulted in drafting the measures of effectiveness. The FAA’s 

deadline, February 14, has since passed, and the Committee expects the FAA to submit the report immediately. In addition, the 

Committee directs the FAA to provide a progress report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by January 2016. 

The Small Airplane Revitalization Act requires that the FAA improve the certification process for small airplanes by modernizing 

part 23 airworthiness regulations, which will enhance safety and 

reduce cost. FAA, DOT and the Office of Management and Budget 

must focus on a coordinated and concurrent review process to ensure a notice of proposed rulemaking is issued by this summer. A 

failure to act would cede international leadership to other regulatory authorities. Using resources provided, the FAA must promote and defend U.S. certification processes and type certificates in 

the international arena. This is increasingly important to the success of U.S. aeronautical products in the competitive international 

marketplace. 

Safety, Security and Infrastructure—Internet Protocol.—The fire 

at the Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center on September 26, 

2014, has highlighted the need to improve the resiliency of the 

FAA’s telecommunications infrastructure and increase the flexibility of its robust network to rapidly reroute or reconfigure communications during emergencies. The Committee is fully supportive 

of the FAA’s commitment to achieving its goal of restoring operations immediately. The funding provided will allow the FAA to implement the results of the FAA review of security and emergency 

response times at air traffic control facilities, which was conducted 

following the fire incident. A pivotal requirement will be to replace 

point-to-point connections with Internet Protocol [IP] based systems to enable network flexibility. Most NextGen programs are IPenabled, and the Committee commends the FAA for now requiring 

IP interfaces in all final investment decisions. Nevertheless, most 

legacy systems—including aeronautical navigation aids and weather instruments—as well as the network itself are point-to-point 

interfaces and are not currently planned for conversion or replace-
31 

ment through NextGen. The October 2014 MITRE report, NextGen 

Independent Assessment and Recommendations, advised that the 

‘‘FAA should aggressively move to eliminate legacy point-to-point 

data telecommunications and information interfaces.’’ In its update 

to the Committee, the FAA has articulated a three-pronged strategy to achieve an IP-based infrastructure. The Committee appreciates the development of an overall plan and would like to see additional information in conjunction with the fiscal year 2017 budget 

submission. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to submit a 

report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that 

provides a detailed plan for upgrading, replacing, or converting 

both the network infrastructure and legacy interfaces to IP, as well 

as specific cost and schedule estimates. The Committee also directs 

the FAA to develop a complete inventory, and to conduct end-toend testing in an IP environment of FAA’s Telecommunications Infrastructure NAS Network components. 

Aeronautical Navigation Products.—The Committee remains concerned about Aeronautical Navigation Products’ [AeroNav] plans to 

impose a per person charge and erect a digital copyright on digital 

products produced by the FAA for the public benefit. The FAA has 

previously made these products available for download from its 

Web site without charge. The Committee is concerned that the proposed scheme will be used to support the declining paper chart 

services by charging those that are moving to a digital format. In 

contrast to AeroNav’s efforts, Executive Order 13642 was issued on 

May 14, 2013, to make government data available to foster entrepreneurship and innovation. This order builds on another order 

issued in 2012 to open up government systems with public interfaces for commercial application providers. With these concerns in 

mind, the Committee continues to include bill language that prohibits AeroNav from implementing new charges on AeroNav products until the FAA provides the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations a report that describes: (1) the estimated cost of 

producing only its digital products, on a product-by-product basis 

(for example, delineating costs for electronic navigation charts and 

vector charts separately), for use on computers, tablets, and other 

displays; (2) the cost of producing both digital products and paper 

products, on a product-by-product basis; (3) safety and operational 

benefits of using digital products; and (4) how AeroNav’s actions 

conflict with the direction in Executive Order 13642 to support 

open data for entrepreneurship, innovation, and scientific discovery. 

FAA Public Hearing.—The Committee remains concerned with 

the proposed modifications to the Condor 1 and Condor 2 military 

operating areas and encourages FAA to continue working with its 

partner agencies by holding a public hearing with representatives 

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

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

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

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

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

proposed airspace would affect areas that significantly contribute to 
32 

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

the only Federal agency that can modify special airspace and that 

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

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

regarding the modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 military 

operations areas that includes a summary of any public meeting 

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

presented at these meetings and hearings. 

Unmanned Aerial Systems.—Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 authorized the FAA to approve, where 

appropriate and consistent with criteria specified in the law, the 

operation of certain unmanned aircraft systems before the completion of certain rules and planning requirements specified in the 

law. The Committee encourages the FAA to consider whether UAS 

test sites may be appropriate in assisting the Secretary in making 

determinations under section 333. The Committee also urges the 

FAA to communicate clearly with the UAS industry regarding its 

priorities for section 333 consideration. 

Unmanned Aerial Systems—Enforcement.—The Committee directs the FAA to increase its enforcement efforts to deter the careless or reckless operation of unmanned aerial vehicles in proximity 

to manned aircraft and airports. 

Addressing Invasive Species.—The aviation system is a way that 

invasive species spread, both domestically and internationally. The 

Committee expects the FAA to take the appropriate steps to make 

the needed progress in addressing invasive species. Under Executive Order 13112, Federal agencies are directed to prevent the introduction of invasive species and to provide for their control and 

minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts 

caused by invasive species. Therefore, the Committee directs the 

FAA to develop a comprehensive strategic plan that addresses the 

requirements of Executive Order 13112, including the prevention of 

invasive species, the control of such populations, and ways to minimize their economic, ecological, and human health impacts. 

Commercial Space Launches.—The number of State spaceports 

has grown rapidly over the last decade, and is expected to continue 

growing over the next several years. Current FAA regulations require launch providers to obtain insurance that covers property 

damage in the event of an accident, but this requirement does not 

address the property of State and local governments. The Committee therefore encourages the FAA to consider either an update 

to those regulations or other policy options that would allow State 

governments—particularly State developments located at Federal 

ranges—to be compensated for losses incurred during a commercial 

launch. 
33 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $2,600,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 2,855,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,503,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,600,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Facilities and Equipment appropriation provides funding for 

modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway facilities, 

equipment, and systems. The appropriation also finances major 

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

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

demands of aeronautical activity and remain in accordance with 

the Federal Aviation Administration’s [FAA] comprehensive 5-year 

capital investment plan [CIP]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,600,000,000 

for the Facilities and Equipment account of the FAA. The recommended level is $255,000,000 less than the budget request and 

equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

Capital Investment Plan.—In fiscal year 2015, the Committee included a provision that lowered the appropriation for FAA’s facilities and equipment by $100,000 for each day the agency was late 

in submitting its capital investment plan to Congress. The Committee continues this provision and expects the FAA to provide the 

plan by the deadline. 

Budget Activities Format.—The Committee directs that the fiscal 

year 2017 budget request for the Facilities and Equipment account 

conform to the same organizational structure of budget activities as 

displayed below. 

The following table shows the Committee’s recommended distribution of funds for each of the budget activities funded by this 

appropriation and by resources provided under Grants-in-Aid to 

Airports: 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2015 enacted 2016 estimate 

Activity 1—Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation: 

Advanced technology development and prototyping ...... $29,900,000 $21,300,000 $20,000,000 

NAS improvement of system support laboratory ............ 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center facilities ................ 12,049,000 19,050,000 12,049,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center infrastructure 

sustainment ................................................................ 12,200,000 12,200,000 12,200,000 

NextGen—Separation management ............................... 31,500,000 26,500,000 31,500,000 

NextGen—Improved surface/TFDM ................................. 38,808,000 17,000,000 17,000,000 

NextGen—On demand NAS ............................................ 6,000,000 11,000,000 8,000,000 

NextGen—Environment ................................................... 5,500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

NextGen—Improved multiple runway operations ........... 5,500,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 

NextGen—NAS infrastructure ......................................... 14,480,000 11,000,000 4,000,000 

NextGen—Support .......................................................... 13,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 
34 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2015 enacted 2016 estimate 

NextGen—Performance based navigation and 

metroplex .................................................................... 26,500,000 13,000,000 13,000,000 

Activity 2—Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment: 

a. En Route Programs: 

En route automation modernization [ERAM]—system 

enhancements and tech refresh ................................ 45,200,000 79,400,000 75,000,000 

En route communications gateway [ECG] ...................... 6,600,000 2,650,000 2,650,000 

Next generation weather radar [NEXRAD]—provide ...... 7,100,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 

ARTCC building improvements/plant improvements ...... 59,000,000 74,200,000 50,000,000 

Air traffic management [ATM] ........................................ 5,729,000 13,700,000 13,700,000 

Air/ground communications infrastructure ..................... 3,900,000 9,750,000 11,750,000 

Air traffic control en route radar facilities improvements .......................................................................... 5,100,000 5,810,000 5,810,000 

Voice switching and control system [VSCS] .................. 13,800,000 9,900,000 9,900,000 

Oceanic automation system ........................................... 3,508,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 

Next generation very high frequency air/ground comm 

[NEXCOM] ................................................................... 40,000,000 43,600,000 43,000,000 

Systemwide information management ........................... 60,261,000 37,400,000 37,400,000 

ADS–B NAS-wide implementation .................................. 254,700,000 45,200,000 184,600,000 

Windshear detection service ........................................... 4,300,000 5,200,000 4,300,000 

Collaborative air traffic management technologies WP2 

& WP3 ......................................................................... 13,491,000 9,800,000 9,800,000 

Time based flow management ....................................... 21,000,000 42,600,000 38,000,000 

ATC beacon interrogator [ATCBI]—sustainment ............ .............................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 

NextGen weather processors ........................................... 23,320,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 

Airborne collision avoidance system X [ACASX] ............. 12,000,000 10,800,000 10,800,000 

Data communications in support of NextGen ................ 150,340,000 234,900,000 234,900,000 

b. Terminal Programs: 

Airport Surface Detection Equipment—Model X [ASDE– 

X] ................................................................................ 5,436,000 13,500,000 8,200,000 

Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR]—provide ........ 1,900,000 4,900,000 1,900,000 

Standard terminal automation replacement system 

[STARS] (TAMR Phase 1) ............................................ 50,700,000 81,100,000 81,100,000 

Terminal automation modernization/replacement program (TAMR Phase 3) ................................................ 146,150,000 159,350,000 159,350,000 

Terminal automation program ........................................ 1,600,000 7,700,000 3,000,000 

Terminal air traffic control facilities—replace .............. 52,600,000 45,500,000 45,500,000 

ATCT/Terminal radar approach control [TRACON] facilities—improve ............................................................. 45,040,000 58,990,000 45,040,000 

Terminal voice switch replacement [TVSR] .................... 2,000,000 6,000,000 2,000,000 

NAS facilities OSHA and environmental standards 

compliance ................................................................. 40,000,000 39,600,000 39,600,000 

Airport surveillance radar [ASR–9] ................................ 13,600,000 3,800,000 3,800,000 

Terminal digital radar [ASR–11] tech refresh and mobile airport surveillance radar [MASR] ...................... 21,100,000 9,900,000 9,900,000 

Runway status lights ...................................................... 41,710,000 24,170,000 24,170,000 

National airspace system voice system [NVS] ............... 20,550,000 53,550,000 53,500,000 

Integrated display system [IDS] ..................................... 16,917,000 23,300,000 16,900,000 

Remote monitoring and logging system [RMLS] ............ 3,930,000 4,700,000 3,930,000 

Mode S service life extension program [SLEP] .............. 8,100,000 16,300,000 16,300,000 

Surveillance interface modernization ............................. 4,000,000 23,000,000 15,000,000 

Voice recorder replacement program [VRRP] ................. 1,000,000 3,000,000 1,000,000 

Integrated terminal weather system [ITWS] ................... 4,400,000 5,400,000 4,400,000 

Flight and Interfacility ATC Data Interface Modernization ............................................................................. .............................. 9,000,000 9,000,000 

c. Flight Service Programs: 

Aviation surface observation system [ASOS] ................. 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 

Future flight service program ......................................... 1,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Alaska flight service facility modernization [AFSFM] ..... 2,800,000 2,650,000 2,650,000 

Weather camera program ............................................... 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 
35 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2015 enacted 2016 estimate 

d. Landing and Navigational Aids Program: 

VHF Omnidirectional radio range [VOR] with distance 

measuring equipment [DME] ..................................... 8,300,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 

Instrument landing system [ILS]—establish ................. 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 

Wide area augmentation system [WAAS] for GPS .......... 98,600,000 80,600,000 91,850,000 

Runway visual range [RVR] and enhanced low visibility operations [ELVO] .............................................. 7,500,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 

Approach lighting system improvement program 

[ALSIP] ........................................................................ 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Distance measuring equipment [DME] ........................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Visual NAVAIDS—establish/expand ................................ 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Instrument flight procedures automation [IFPA] ............ 2,400,000 3,371,000 2,400,000 

Navigation and landing aids—service life extension 

program [SLEP] .......................................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

VASI Replacement—replace with precision approach 

path indicator ............................................................. 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 

GPS Civil requirements ................................................... 10,000,000 27,000,000 10,000,000 

Runway safety areas—navigational mitigation ............ 35,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 

e. Other ATC Facilities Programs: 

Fuel storage tank replacement and management ......... 14,500,000 18,700,000 10,000,000 

Unstaffed infrastructure sustainment ............................ 30,300,000 39,640,000 30,000,000 

Aircraft related equipment program ............................... 9,000,000 9,000,000 5,000,000 

Airport cable loop systems—sustained support ............ 5,000,000 12,000,000 5,000,000 

Alaskan satellite telecommunications infrastructure 

[ASTI] .......................................................................... 11,400,000 12,500,000 10,000,000 

Facilities decommissioning ............................................. 5,700,000 6,000,000 5,700,000 

Electrical power systems—sustain/support ................... 82,701,000 124,970,000 82,700,000 

FAA Employee housing and life safety shelter system 

service ........................................................................ .............................. 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Energy management and compliance [EMC] ................. 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Child Care Center Sustainment ...................................... .............................. 1,600,000 1,600,000 

FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure ......................... .............................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Activity 3—Nonair Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment: 

a. Support Equipment: 

Hazardous materials management ................................. 22,000,000 26,400,000 20,000,000 

Aviation safety analysis system [ASAS] ......................... 11,900,000 20,200,000 18,000,000 

Logistics support systems and facilities [LSSF] ............ 8,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

National airspace [NAS] recovery communications 

[RCOM] ....................................................................... 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 

Facility security risk management ................................. 14,300,000 15,000,000 14,300,000 

Information security ........................................................ 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 

System approach for safety oversight [SASO] ............... 22,500,000 18,900,000 18,900,000 

Aviation safety knowledge management environment 

[ASKME] ...................................................................... 10,200,000 7,500,000 7,500,000 

Aerospace medical equipment needs [AMEN] ................ .............................. 2,500,000 1,500,000 

System safety management portfolio ............................. 18,700,000 17,000,000 17,000,000 

National test equipment program .................................. 2,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 

Mobile assets management program ............................. 4,000,000 4,800,000 4,000,000 

Aerospace medicine safety information systems 

[AMSIS] ....................................................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Tower simulation system [TSS] tech refresh .................. 3,000,000 7,000,000 3,000,000 

b. Training, Equipment and Facilities: 

Aeronautical center infrastructure modernization .......... 13,180,000 15,200,000 12,000,000 

Distance learning ............................................................ 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 

Activity 4—Facilities and Equipment Mission Support: 

a. System Support and Services: 

System engineering and development support .............. 34,504,000 35,000,000 34,504,000 

Program support leases .................................................. 43,200,000 46,700,000 43,197,000 

Logistics support services [LSS] .................................... 11,500,000 11,000,000 10,000,000 

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center leases .................... 18,350,000 18,800,000 18,350,000 

Transition engineering support ....................................... 16,596,000 19,200,000 19,200,000 
36 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2015 enacted 2016 estimate 

Technical support services contract [TSSC] ................... 23,000,000 23,000,000 23,000,000 

Resource tracking program [RTP] .................................. 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development 

[CAASD] ...................................................................... 60,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 

Aeronautical information management program ........... 12,650,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Cross agency NextGen management .............................. 2,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 

Activity 5—Personnel and Related Expenses ......................... 460,000,000 470,049,000 467,000,000 

Activity 6—Sustain ADS–B services and Wide Areas Augmentation Services [WAAS] GEOs ....................................... .............................. 166,000,000 ..............................

Total resources provided under this appropriation .................................................................... 2,600,000,000 2,855,000,000 2,600,000,000 

ADS–B NAS Wide Implementation.—ADS–B uses GPS signals to 

transmit an aircraft’s location to receivers installed on the ground 

throughout the United States. The ground receivers transmit that 

information to air traffic controller screens and flight deck displays 

on any aircraft equipped with the appropriate avionics. Using 

ADS–B will improve the safety and efficiency of the national airspace, and it is a foundational program of the FAA’s NextGen effort 

to modernize our air traffic control system. The Committee recommendation therefore includes $184,600,000 for the implementation of ADS–B across the national airspace. 

The Committee’s recommendation is equal to the budget request, 

which included $45,200,000 in Activity 2 and another $139,400,000 

in a new Activity for leases and subscription costs. The recommendation is also $70,100,000 less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Committee recommendation rejects the request to 

create a new Activity 6 and instead provides ADS–B resources for 

both activities within Activity 2. 

NextGen-Separation Management Portfolio.—The Committee recommends $31,500,000 for NextGen-Separation Management Portfolio, an increase of $5,000,000 above the budget request. Of this 

amount, the Committee recommendation specifically includes 

$15,000,000 to continue advancement of space-based ADS–B. The 

Committee supports this technology as a means to enhance safety 

and increase capacity. The additional funding is necessary to ensure that the FAA will be able to keep pace with neighboring air 

navigation service providers in adjacent oceanic airspace who plan 

to use space-based ADS–B in 2018 to track aircraft and offer reduced separation services over the oceans. The Committee expects 

the agency to accelerate its ability to implement space-based ADS– 

B by 2018 and report on its progress to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this act. 

Terminal Flight Data Manager [TFDM].—The Committee supports the FAA’s efforts to accelerate NextGen benefits in the air 

traffic control tower and surface movement operating domains 

through the TFDM program. The FAA should work expeditiously 

to deploy control tower and surface TFDM enhancements at the 

Nation’s busiest airports. 
37 

Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS].—WAAS uses a single 

frequency to calculate GPS corrections that are broadcast to the 

WAAS user. The FAA is planning to use its funds for engineering 

services for WAAS dual frequency algorithms definition, modeling, 

and prototyping with the FAA systems engineering team, consultants, and the WAAS vendor. The Committee supports this strategy 

because it ensures that the FAA has access to those with expertise 

in original WAAS algorithms development who understand the 

end-to-end system impacts for algorithm changes, and who have a 

strong desire to solve this problem quickly. The Committee directs 

the FAA to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with an update on its progress within 180 days of enactment of this act. 

Surveillance Radar Strategy.—The Committee funds the request 

to extend the usability of its surveillance radar infrastructure and 

agrees with the technology refresh plans. When developing the 

NextGen Surveillance and Weather Radar Capability acquisition 

strategy, the Committee directs the FAA to continue working closely with other Departments and Agencies, to include the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and National 

Weather Service, at a minimum. The Committee believes that a 

joint surveillance strategy represents the most effective use of taxpayer funds. 

Air to Ground Communication.—The Committee recognizes that 

the establishment of new military airspace creates new communications requirements for civilian aircraft and also believes that 

civilian aircraft operating near newly established military airspace 

should have the ability to communicate directly with local air traffic controllers. 

Multi-Function Phased Array Radar [MPAR].—The Committee 

recognizes the importance of the MPAR program in the development and implementation of the next generation weather and aircraft radar surveillance network. The Committee supports the NAS 

Infrastructure Portfolio Activity to continue to advance ongoing 

program efforts. However, significant challenges require the consolidation of planning, and research and development strategies for 

the future success of the MPAR program. Specifically, the Committee is concerned regarding the uncertainty pertaining to cost 

sharing between the FAA and NOAA for technical risk reduction, 

non-recurring engineering, prototype development, and ultimate 

deployment and ongoing maintenance and operations costs. As 

such, the Committee directs that FAA continue working with 

NOAA for the MPAR program research and development effort and 

participate in an interagency committee with NOAA and other 

stakeholders to help formulate key requirements for development 

and eventual acquisition strategy. This Committee should serve as 

a means to coordinate with other government agencies, particularly 

DOD and DHS. Additionally, the Committee directs FAA to provide 

its expertise to NOAA to assist in facilitating a full evaluation of 

operational benefits including but not limited to weather surveillance, fine-scale numerical weather prediction, tracking of cooperative and uncooperative aircraft, discrimination of biological targets 

and small unmanned aerial systems, clutter suppression, data communication, and system reliability. FAA should provide to the 
38 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations its support plan 

to help NOAA achieve these objectives 45 days after the enactment 

of this act. 

Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Range—Distance Measuring Equipment.—The Committee notes that the FAA has made 

progress implementing the Very High Frequency Omni-Directional 

Range Minimum Operating Network [VOR MON] program and addressing concerns raised from its unions. The Committee directs 

the FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on its strategy for using service-based approaches, including a discussion of how such approaches affect cost-effectiveness 

and system resiliency. 

Automation at Facilities That Provide En Route and Terminal 

Services.—The FAA has made significant investments to modernize 

its automation systems for both the en route and the terminal environments. In addition to supporting NextGen, this modernization 

effort has allowed the FAA to implement a common platform across 

en route facilities and across terminal facilities. Sharing the same 

automation platform will help make the FAA’s air traffic control 

system more flexible and more efficient, and it will lower the cost 

of maintaining automation systems over the long term. The FAA, 

however, continues to use MicroEARTS at facilities that provide 

both en route and terminal services. The Committee is concerned 

about the condition of this platform, and questions if the FAA will 

secure the full benefit of modernization if it does not include all of 

its air traffic control facilities in this effort. The Committee therefore directs the FAA to evaluate the automation systems that are 

used at facilities providing both en route and terminal services, develop an investment plan for these facilities, and submit a report 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later 

than 1 year after enactment of this act. 

Military Operations Areas.—The Air Force, following extensive 

consultation with the FAA and stakeholders, is expanding the size 

of the Powder River Training Range—which covers areas of South 

Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming. The expansion will 

enable greater, and more realistic training opportunities for our 

Nation’s military, including the use of this training range for limited large force military training exercises not to exceed 10 days 

per year. The FAA reviewed the USAF plans, particularly with regard to safety, and approved the expanded range in March 2015. 

The Committee urges the FAA to coordinate with the Department 

of Defense and the Air Force on a regular basis, and encourages 

the FAA to review the USAFs compliance with the record of decision, including requirements contained in the record of decision 

with respect to communications equipment near new areas that are 

designated for low altitude military training, and submit a report 

on its findings to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 1 year after enactment of this act, including an 

assessment of options for and feasibility of enhanced communication or surveillance equipment utilizing existing budget authorities. 

The Committee directs the FAA and DOD to proceed with the utilization of the expanded Range, as approved, as the FAA assesses 

additional equipment. 
39 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $156,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 166,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 156,750,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 163,325,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Research, Engineering and Development appropriation provides funding for long-term research, engineering, and development 

programs to improve the air traffic control system by increasing its 

safety and capacity, as well as reducing the environmental impacts 

of air traffic, as authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation Act, as amended. The programs 

are designed to meet the expected air traffic demands of the future 

and to promote flight safety through improvements in facilities, 

equipment, techniques, and procedures to ensure that the system 

will safely and efficiently handle future volumes of aircraft traffic. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $163,325,000 for the FAA’s Research, Engineering, and Development activities. The recommended 

level of funding is $2,675,000 less than the budget request and 

$6,575,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

A table showing the fiscal year 2015 enacted level, the fiscal year 

2016 budget estimate and the Committee recommendation follows: 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2015 enacted 2016 estimate 

Safety: 

Fire research and safety ................................................................... $6,000,000 $6,643,000 $6,643,000 

Propulsion and fuel systems ............................................................ 2,000,000 3,034,000 2,034,000 

Advanced materials/structural safety .............................................. 2,909,000 3,625,000 7,409,000 

Aircraft icing /digital system safety ................................................ 5,500,000 6,920,000 5,920,000 

Continued airworthiness ................................................................... 9,619,000 8,987,000 8,987,000 

Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research ............................ 1,500,000 1,433,000 1,433,000 

Flightdeck/maintenance/system integration human factors ............ 6,000,000 9,947,000 5,000,000 

System safety management ............................................................. 7,970,000 6,063,000 6,063,000 

Air traffic control/technical operations human factors ................... 5,400,000 5,995,000 4,995,000 

Aeromedical research ........................................................................ 8,300,000 10,255,000 8,300,000 

Weather program .............................................................................. 14,847,000 18,253,000 15,000,000 

Unmanned aircraft systems research .............................................. 14,974,000 9,635,000 14,635,000 

NextGen—Alternative fuels for general aviation ............................. 6,000,000 5,833,000 7,000,000 

NextGen—Advanced system and software validation ..................... ........................ ........................ ........................

Economic competitiveness: 

NextGen—Wake turbulence .............................................................. 8,541,000 8,680,000 8,541,000 

NextGen—Air ground integration human factors ............................ 9,697,000 8,875,000 7,875,000 

NextGen—Weather technology in the cockpit .................................. 4,048,000 4,116,000 4,048,000 

Commercial Space Transportation Safety ........................................ ........................ 3,000,000 2,000,000 

Environmental sustainability: 

Environment and energy ................................................................... 14,921,000 15,061,000 16,074,000 

NextGen—Environmental research aircraft technologies, fuels, 

and metrics .................................................................................. 23,014,000 23,823,000 25,823,000 

Mission support: 

System planning and resource management ................................... 2,100,000 2,377,000 2,100,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center ................................................. 3,410,000 3,445,000 3,445,000 
40 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2015 enacted 2016 estimate 

Total .............................................................................................. 156,750,000 166,000,000 163,325,000 

Unmanned Aerial Systems [UAS] Research—Center of Excellence.—The Committee recommendation includes $14,635,000 for 

unmanned aircraft systems research, an increase of $5,000,000 

above the budget request and $339,000 below the fiscal year 2015 

enacted level. The Committee directs the FAA to dedicate the funding increase over the budget request to the center of excellence. 

The Committee is pleased that the Department has established 

a UAS center of excellence to address a host of research challenges 

associated with integration of UAS into the national airspace. The 

formation of a UAS center of excellence is essential to meet the requirements enacted as part of the FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act of 2012. The Committee directs that the center of excellence 

shall focus on key areas of UAS research including: airworthiness, 

remote sensing, advanced composites, detect and avoid, and low altitude research in harsh climates. Additionally, the center should 

maintain close relations with disaster response agencies, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Agriculture 

in order to facilitate research in important UAS mission areas, 

such as environmental monitoring, weather and hydrologic prediction, precision agriculture, law enforcement, disaster response 

and oil transportation systems monitoring. 

Unmanned Aerial Systems Research—Test Sites.—The Committee notes that integration of UAS into the National Airspace 

System [NAS] remains a national priority with the potential to increase public safety and bring economic benefits to a wide range of 

industries. In December 2013, the FAA chose six UAS test sites to 

assist the FAA in meeting its UAS research needs. In order to successfully meet its goals for integration, the FAA must execute an 

organized research plan to effectively leverage the capabilities of 

the test sites, as well as research being done by other Federal 

agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to guide its ongoing efforts to integrate UAS into the NAS. 

Research projects and programs funded through the center of excellence should use the airspace and capabilities available through the 

six test sites when conducting flight operations and collecting data. 

The Committee expects UAS flight operations conducted as part of 

the center of excellence research to be performed at one of six test 

sites selected for UAS research and airspace integration. The Committee also directs the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center 

to use these test sites in conducting its research and operational 

tests. The Committee recommendation includes $14,635,000 for unmanned aircraft systems research, of which $9,635,000 fully funds 

the FAA’s budget request to support the technical center’s research 

activities related to unmanned systems. This funding may be used 

to support the center’s research activities and operational tests conducted at the test sites. 

Because of the importance of these efforts, the Committee reiterates its direction from last year to improve the ‘‘Integration of Civil 
41 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems [UAS] in the National Airspace System [NAS] Roadmap,’’ by including a strategic plan on research efforts. The strategic plan shall discuss: the specific research needs 

to safely integrate UAS into the NAS, including an examination of 

the research goals that the FAA must reach in order to successfully 

and safely advance NAS integration; FAA’s strategy to obtain the 

identified research through partnerships with other Federal agencies, the UAS center of excellence, participants in the UAS and 

aviation industry, and the UAS test sites; and an evaluation of the 

ability of the UAS test sites to coordinate with the FAA and its 

center of excellence, and participate in the FAA’s strategy to help 

achieve the research goals identified in the roadmap. The roadmap 

should also address milestones for research and development activities needed to allow operations of UAS flying beyond the line of 

sight. The first edition of the roadmap was published in 2013, and 

the Committee directs the FAA to update this roadmap no later 

than December 31, 2016. 

Unmanned Aerial Systems Research—Coordination with Other 

Agencies.—Both the U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP] 

and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] 

research and develop UAS technologies. The Committee therefore 

encourages the FAA to leverage these research and development efforts as it integrates UAS into the national airspace. The Committee expects the FAA to use the resources provided for UAS research under the Committee recommendation to collect and evaluate data and information from CBP and NASA UAS projects, and 

to collaborate with these partners on research efforts necessary to 

integrate UAS into the national airspace. 

Unmanned Aerospace Systems.—Media Projects.—The Committee 

urges the FAA to direct potential news and broadcast media pilot 

projects to the UAS test sites for consideration. The test sites 

would conduct these projects of small unmanned aircraft systems 

in both simulated and live demonstrations of covering breaking 

news and other special events. Current FAA regulations and policies generally prohibit the operation of small UAS over persons not 

directly involved with the UAS operation. These restrictions severely inhibit the media’s ability to serve the public interest 

through effective news gathering, and instead relegate media to 

use of manned helicopters, which the FAA itself has recognized 

poses greater risks to persons on the ground. The Committee recognizes the FAA’s recently announced Pathfinder program includes a 

project with CNN to study operations over people. The Committee 

supports this project but believes it should be expanded, given the 

public interest in enhancing news gathering through innovative 

technologies. The objective of the pilot projects is to demonstrate 

the technological capabilities and operational conditions that would 

ensure the safety of operations of small UASs to attend breaking 

news and other special events. 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Airport Operations.—Given the 

rise in the number of UAS sightings at our Nation’s airports, there 

is interest in using technology that will detect, identify and track 

air vehicles and ground controllers to explicitly identify UAS without interference and ensure the safety of existing airport operations. The Committee therefore urges the FAA to work with air-
42 

ports in order to assess the ability of such technology to defeat an 

errant or hostile UAS without causing collateral damage to essential navigation systems, wireless communications, the general public or other airport operations. 

Alternative Fuels for General Aviation.—The Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 for research that supports alternative fuels for general aviation. This funding level is $1,167,000 

above the budget request and $1,000,000 above the fiscal year 2015 

enacted level. 

Environmental Sustainability.—The Committee recommendation 

includes a total of $41,897,000 for research related to environmental sustainability, which is $3,013,000 above the budget request and $3,962,000 above the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. This 

total includes $16,074,000 under the ‘‘Environment and energy’’ 

and another $25,823,000 under ‘‘NextGen—Environmental research 

aircraft technologies, fuels, and metrics.’’ 

The funding provided under these headings supports the FAA’s 

continuous, lower energy emissions, and noise program [CLEEN], 

which has helped advance the research and development of advanced engine and airframe technologies that conserve more fuel 

and produce fewer emissions than today’s technology. 

The funding also supports the FAA’s center of excellence for alternative jet fuels and environment. The Committee directs the increase provided under its recommendation to this center of excellence, resulting in a total funding level of $10,513,000. 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2015 enacted 2016 estimate House allowance 

Resources from the Airport and Airway Trust 

Fund: 

Limitation on obligations ............................ 3,350,000,000 2,900,000,000 3,350,000,000 3,350,000,000 

Liquidation of contract authorization .......... 3,200,000,000 3,500,000,000 3,600,000,000 3,600,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Funding for Grants-in-Aid for 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. 
43 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$3,350,000,000 for Grants-in-Aid for airports for fiscal year 2016. 

The recommended limitation on obligations is equal to the enacted 

level for fiscal year 2015, and $450,000,000 more than the budget 

estimate. Under the request, large commercial airports no longer 

receive formula grants from the program, but they would be allowed to raise their passenger facility charges to finance capital improvements. The Committee notes that an increase to passenger facility charges was considered as part of the debate over the bill to 

reauthorize the FAA. That increase, however, was not included in 

the final legislation. The Committee therefore recommends a funding level that would fund capital improvements at all airports that 

support our Nation’s air transportation system. 

In addition, the Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $3,600,000,000 for Grants-in-Aid for airports. The 

recommended level is $100,000,000 more than the budget estimate 

and $400,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

This appropriation is sufficient to cover the liquidation of all obligations incurred pursuant to the limitation on obligations set forward 

in the bill. 

Finally, the Committee recommendation includes a rescission of 

any contract authority that would be created under section 48112 

in fiscal year 2016. This rescission would not affect the baseline set 

by the Congressional Budget Office. 

Administrative Expenses.—The Committee recommends 

$107,100,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding level 

is equal to the budget request and the fiscal year 2015 enacted 

level. 

Airport Cooperative Research.—The Committee recommends 

$15,000,000 for the Airport Cooperative Research program. This 

funding level is equal to the budget estimate and the fiscal year 

2015 enacted level. 

Airport Technology.—The Committee recommends $31,000,000 

for Airport Technology Research. This funding level is equal to the 

budget request and $1,250,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 level. 

The Committee recommends the FAA study whether it is appropriate to expand the installation of foreign object debris detection 

technology at hub airports in order to increase safety. 

Small Community Air Service Development Program 

[SCASDP].—The Committee recommends $10,000,000. This funding level is $4,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

The budget request included no funds for this program for fiscal 

year 2016. 

Allocation of Resources.—The Committee recognizes many states 

have short construction seasons due to inclement weather and require certainty about airport grant allocations when making planning decisions. FAA is encouraged to work expeditiously to make 

entitlement and discretionary grant allocations, to provide certainty to northern State airports. 
44 

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 2016. 

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 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 119 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and expenses 

of more than nine political and Presidential appointees in the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Section 119A 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 119B prohibits funds from being used to change weight 

restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro Airport in New 

Jersey. 

Section 119C requires the FAA to notify the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations at least 90 days before closing a regional operations center or reducing the services it provides. 

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 
45 

national forests, national parks, Indian lands, and other public 

lands. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of 

$40,995,000,000 is provided for the activities of the Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2016. The recommendation is 

$10,312,248,000 less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The following table summarizes the 

Committee’s recommendations: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2015 enacted 2016 estimate House allowance 

Federal-aid highways program obligation limitation .................................. $40,256,000,000 $50,068,248,000 $40,256,000,000 $40,256,000,000 

Contract authority exempt from the 

obligation limitation ......................... 739,000,000 739,000,000 739,000,000 739,000,000 

Fixing and accelerating surface transportation ........................................... .............................. 500,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Total ........................................ 40,995,000,000 51,307,248,000 40,995,000,000 40,995,000,000 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation, 2015 1 .................................................................................. $426,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 442,248,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 429,348,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 429,348,000 

1Does not include $3,248,000 transferred to the Appalachian Regional Commission. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$429,348,000 for administrative expenses of the agency and for administrative expenses of the Appalachian Regional Commission in 

accordance with section 104 of title 23, United States Code. This 

limitation is $12,900,000 less than the budget request and equal to 

the fiscal year 2015 enacted level when taking into account the 

$3,248,000 transfer to the Appalachian Regional Commission. 

The Committee recommendation includes bill language that 

makes sufficient contract authority available for FHWA’s administrative expenses to meet its needs in fiscal year 2016. The Committee remains concerned about the FHWA’s ability to continue 

providing oversight and critical support to State and local partners 

in a time of budgetary constraints, and is disappointed that FHWA 
46 

has yet to submit a 6-year strategic plan as required by Senate Report 113–182. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2015 ..................................................................................... $40,256,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 50,068,248,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 40,256,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,256,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal-aid highway program provides financial support to 

States and localities for development, construction, and repair of 

highways and bridges through grants. The program is financed 

from the Highway Trust Fund and most of the funds are distributed through apportionments and allocations to States. Title 23 of 

the United States Code and other supporting legislation provide 

authority for the various activities of the FHWA. Funding is provided by contract authority, with program levels established by annual limitations on obligations set in appropriations acts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2016 obligations to $40,256,000,000, which is $9,812,248 less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level for the Federal-aid highway program. This funding level is consistent with 

current funding levels under 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 credit instruments. 

Advanced Composite Bridge Technologies.—The Committee supports the Technology and Innovation Deployment Program’s efforts 

to improve the safety, efficiency, reliability, and performance of our 

Nation’s transportation infrastructure. It also notes the growing 

need to accelerate the adoption of best practices, technologies, and 

materials that lead to faster construction and cost-effective rehabilitation of efficient and safe bridges. The Committee encourages 

the Department to use funds authorized under 503(c) of title 23, 

United States Code, for the demonstration and deployment of advanced composite materials in bridge replacement and rehabilitation. 

Environmental Reviews.—The Committee recognizes the Department’s efforts to implement the administratively related streamlining provisions included in MAP–21. The Committee encourages 

the Department to continue its efforts to implement these changes 

nationally, and recognizes the efforts made by the Administration 

to work cooperatively with other Federal agencies and with State 

governments, including its work with the State of Utah on its 

Mountain Accord approach for a regional transportation, land use, 

natural resource and economic solution. The Committee encourages 
47 

the Department to continue participating in the streamlined facilitation of the environmental impact processes for regional and national transportation projects in conjunction with multiple Federal 

agencies, diverse public and private interests including State and 

local governments and public interest groups. 

Bridge Deck Assessment Technologies.—The Committee is aware 

that some States and other bridge-owners would benefit from highly efficient, non-destructive, technologies and methods that do not 

require lane closure and that provide quantitative data so engineers can identify specific areas of bridge decks that require repair 

so as to minimize the time and cost of bridge deck assessments. 

The Committee is aware that several States have sponsored demonstrations of emergent technologies that could help meet these requirements. The Committee again notes the growing need to accelerate the adoption of best practices, technologies, and materials 

that lead to faster bridge deck assessment and encourages the Department to use funding in the Technology and Innovation Deployment Program for the demonstration by State departments of 

transportation of proven bridge deck assessment technologies that 

require minimal or no lane closures. 

Performance-Based Pavement Preservation Deployment.—As 

State and local highway agencies shift their focus to maintaining 

existing roadways rather than expanding current systems, better 

information is needed to effectively select and apply pavement 

preservation treatments. The Committee recommends that FHWA 

conduct applied pavement preservation research and deployment 

activities to ensure that roadway conditions are maintained in the 

most cost-effective means possible. FHWA should facilitate the collection and evaluation of performance-based pavement preservation 

data from State pavement management systems and national field 

studies. 

Alternate Design/Alternate Bid [AD/AB].—The Committee is 

aware of the potential of Alternate Design and Alternate Bid [AD/ 

AB] procurement methods in reducing the overall cost of infrastructure projects. With limited funding available for highway projects, 

it is essential that FHWA promote the efficient use of Federal 

funding provided by the Committee. The Committee directs the 

agency to issue guidance to division offices and States on the use 

of AD/AB and other innovative contracting methods eligible under 

subsection 120(c) of title 23, United States Code that increase competition and help lower the cost of infrastructure projects. 

Tribal Transportation Programs.—The Committee recognizes the 

immense transportation infrastructure needs of Indian Country. 

Only around 8 percent of the nearly 14,000 miles of roads and 

trails owned and maintained by Indian tribes are paved. Furthermore, around 75 percent of the 29,400 miles of roads owned and 

maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are classified as graveled, earth, or primitive. In 2012, MAP–21 replaced the Indian Reservation Roads Program with the Tribal Transportation Program 

[TTP] and folded several programs, including the Bridge Program 

and Safety Program, into the TTP. However, current funding levels 

do not meet the true needs in Indian Country. This investment gap 

limits economic growth and safety improvements in Indian Country 

and adds to the backlog of necessary maintenance projects. As 
48 

such, the Committee directs the Department of Transportation to 

work with the Department of the Interior and report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the transportation 

infrastructure needs facing Indian country and proposed steps to 

make improvements. The Committee expects the Department to 

complete the report in a timely manner so that it can inform Congress as it considers legislation that funds the Tribal Transportation Program. 

Highway Easement.—The Secretary is directed to work with the 

Chief of the Forest Service to ensure that easements are issued in 

a timely manner as required by section 4407 of Public Law 109– 

59. 

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 2015 enacted 2016 estimate 

Formula Programs 

Alabama ............................................................................................... $675,218,615 $849,246,456 $675,218,615 

Alaska .................................................................................................. 425,867,575 536,041,394 425,867,575 

Arizona ................................................................................................. 651,913,858 810,997,919 651,913,858 

Arkansas .............................................................................................. 450,253,847 567,697,218 450,253,847 

California ............................................................................................. 3,207,910,392 3,957,856,553 3,207,910,392 

Colorado ............................................................................................... 476,542,508 591,675,985 476,542,508 

Connecticut .......................................................................................... 436,652,454 543,617,617 436,652,454 

Delaware .............................................................................................. 144,179,177 180,644,441 144,179,177 

District of Columbia ............................................................................ 142,155,608 176,973,736 142,155,608 

Florida .................................................................................................. 1,686,192,861 2,121,368,289 1,686,192,861 

Georgia ................................................................................................. 1,150,024,045 1,435,902,384 1,150,024,045 

Hawaii .................................................................................................. 144,077,317 180,803,892 144,077,317 

Idaho .................................................................................................... 254,708,403 318,505,231 254,708,403 

Illinois .................................................................................................. 1,267,031,514 1,572,955,495 1,267,031,514 

Indiana ................................................................................................. 826,157,520 1,036,963,346 826,157,520 

Iowa ...................................................................................................... 437,459,635 537,821,961 437,459,635 

Kansas ................................................................................................. 336,396,108 422,072,390 336,396,108 

Kentucky ............................................................................................... 591,395,358 743,099,134 591,395,358 

Louisiana .............................................................................................. 595,789,190 755,097,311 595,789,190 

Maine ................................................................................................... 160,807,064 201,258,062 160,807,064 

Maryland .............................................................................................. 535,659,466 661,812,547 535,659,466 

Massachusetts ..................................................................................... 541,559,818 668,686,638 541,559,818 

Michigan .............................................................................................. 938,135,754 1,166,664,467 938,135,754 

Minnesota ............................................................................................. 567,819,564 711,856,554 567,819,564 

Mississippi ........................................................................................... 420,593,438 530,346,199 420,593,438 

Missouri ................................................................................................ 823,400,811 1,037,588,229 823,400,811 

Montana ............................................................................................... 357,027,457 449,029,291 357,027,457 

Nebraska .............................................................................................. 257,353,263 322,283,289 257,353,263 

Nevada ................................................................................................. 323,662,229 401,172,531 323,662,229 

New Hampshire .................................................................................... 146,296,021 182,424,609 146,296,021 

New Jersey ............................................................................................ 886,934,422 1,096,432,140 886,934,422 

New Mexico .......................................................................................... 319,476,963 402,207,065 319,476,963 

New York .............................................................................................. 1,496,873,904 1,846,620,067 1,496,873,904 

North Carolina ...................................................................................... 928,844,967 1,158,426,221 928,844,967 

North Dakota ........................................................................................ 216,116,257 271,262,641 216,116,257 

Ohio ...................................................................................................... 1,168,439,039 1,458,317,636 1,168,439,039 

Oklahoma ............................................................................................. 560,681,360 705,649,276 560,681,360 

Oregon .................................................................................................. 435,040,366 546,559,183 435,040,366 

Pennsylvania ........................................................................................ 1,461,703,382 1,820,841,293 1,461,703,382 

Rhode Island ........................................................................................ 189,535,419 237,893,336 189,535,419 

South Carolina ..................................................................................... 582,262,339 688,703,541 582,262,339 
49 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2015 enacted 2016 estimate 

South Dakota ....................................................................................... 245,497,450 308,177,589 245,497,450 

Tennessee ............................................................................................. 735,612,759 923,561,695 735,612,759 

Texas .................................................................................................... 3,074,155,132 3,511,714,270 3,074,155,132 

Utah ..................................................................................................... 302,236,325 352,284,477 302,236,325 

Vermont ................................................................................................ 176,824,829 221,190,339 176,824,829 

Virginia ................................................................................................. 886,317,671 1,110,285,542 886,317,671 

Washington .......................................................................................... 603,865,356 753,068,250 603,865,356 

West Virginia ........................................................................................ 380,211,336 478,553,595 380,211,336 

Wisconsin ............................................................................................. 669,952,033 838,954,388 669,952,033 

Wyoming ............................................................................................... 217,848,441 274,762,117 217,848,441 

Subtotal .................................................................................. 34,510,670,620 42,677,927,829 34,510,670,620 

Allocated programs .............................................................................. 5,364,809,825 6,995,860,552 5,364,809,825 

Sections 154 and 164 Penalties ......................................................... 365,671,347 379,611,411 365,671,347 

High Risk Rural Roads Special Rule ................................................... 14,848,208 14,848,208 14,848,208 

Total ........................................................................................ 40,256,000,000 50,068,248,000 40,256,000,000 

Program Descriptions.—The roads and bridges that make up our 

Nation’s highway infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States have much flexibility to use Federal-aid highway 

funds to best meet their individual needs and priorities, with 

FHWA’s assistance and oversight. 

MAP–21, the current highway, highway safety, and transit authorization law, made funding for Federal-aid highways available 

in the following categories of spending: —National Highway Performance Program [NHPP].—This program provides support for the condition and performance of the 

national highway system [NHS], and for the construction of 

new facilities on the NHS. Projects funded through the NHPP 

must support progress toward the achievement of national performance goals for improving infrastructure condition, safety, 

mobility, or freight movement on the national highway system. 

Such projects must also support progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a State’s asset 

management plan, and must be consistent with requirements 

for metropolitan and statewide planning. Funding for this program also supports the Transportation Alternatives program, 

and State planning and research. —Surface Transportation Program.—The Surface Transportation 

Program provides flexible funding that may be used by States 

and localities for projects that preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway; bridge and 

tunnel projects on any public road; pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and transit capital projects, including intercity 

bus terminals. Funding for this program also supports the 

Transportation Alternatives program, and State planning and 

research. A portion of the program’s funding is set aside for 

improvements to off-system bridges. 

—Highway Safety Improvement Program.—This program is designed to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and 
50 

serious injuries on all public roads, including roads on tribal 

lands and other public roads that are not owned by a State 

government. An eligible highway safety improvement project is 

any strategy, activity or project on a public road that corrects 

or improves a hazardous road location or feature, or addresses 

a highway safety problem. Such projects must be consistent 

with the State’s strategic highway safety plan, which must be 

based on analysis of crash data. Funding for this program also 

supports the Transportation Alternatives program, and State 

planning and research. In addition, a set-aside from the STP 

program funds the Railway-Highway Crossings Program, 

which supports safety improvements to reduce the number of 

fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public grade crossings. —Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program 

[CMAQ].—The CMAQ program provides a flexible funding 

source to State and local governments for transportation 

projects and programs that help meet the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and 

improve air quality for areas that do not meet the national ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. Funding for this program also supports the 

Transportation Alternatives program, and State planning and 

research. —Metropolitan Planning.—The metropolitan planning process establishes a cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive framework for making transportation investment decisions in metropolitan areas. Program oversight is a joint responsibility of the 

Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. —Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program [TIFIA].—This program provides Federal credit assistance to eligible surface transportation projects, including highway, transit, intercity passenger rail, some types of freight rail, 

and intermodal freight transfer facilities. TIFIA is designed to 

fill market gaps and leverage substantial private co-investment 

by providing projects with supplemental or subordinate debt. 

The program may provide credit to States, localities, or other 

public authorities, as well as private entities undertaking 

projects sponsored by public authorities. TIFIA offers direct 

loans, loan guarantees and lines of credit. 

—Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities.— 

The ferry program provides funding for the construction of 

ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities. Funds are distributed 

according to statutory formula. 

—Tribal Transportation Program.—The Tribal Transportation 

Program is designed to provide access to basic community services and to enhance the quality of life in Indian country. Funding is distributed among tribes based on a statutory formula. 

—Federal Lands Transportation Program.—This program funds 

projects that improve access within federally owned lands, including national forests, national parks, national wildlife refuges, and national recreation areas. Each year, funds are provided to the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and funds are distributed on a competitive basis 
51 

to the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, 

and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. —Federal Lands Access Program.—This program provides funds 

for projects on transportation facilities that are located on or 

adjacent to federally owned lands, or that provide access to 

those areas. Funds are distributed by formula among States 

that have Federal lands managed by the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. —State Planning and Research.—This program provides funding 

for States to conduct planning and research activities. The 

funds are used to establish a cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive framework for making transportation investment 

decisions, and to carry out transportation research activities 

through each of the States. The program is funded with resources from the National Highway Performance Program, the 

Surface Transportation Program, and the Highway Safety Improvement Program, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air 

Quality Program. —Transportation Alternatives.—This program provides funding 

for a variety of alternative transportation projects, including 

trails for pedestrians and bicyclists; transportation systems 

that provide safe routes for non-drivers, including children, 

older adults, and people with disabilities; and environmental 

mitigation projects. —Territorial and Puerto Rico Highway Program.—This program 

supports a highway program in the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, and it provides funding to assist the governments of the 

U.S. territories with highway investments and necessary 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. 
52 

—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 

System Program, University Transportation Centers and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. These programs are administered 

by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology. 

LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $40,995,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 1 ......................................................................... 51,307,248,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 40,995,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,995,000,000 

1 Includes $500,000,000 for the Fast and Accelerating Surface Transportation program. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal-aid highway program is funded through contract authority paid out of the Highway Trust Fund. Most forms of budget 

authority provide the authority to enter into obligations and then 

to liquidate those obligations. Put another way, it allows a Federal 

agency to commit to spending money on specified activities and 

then to actually spend that money. In contrast, contract authority 

provides only the authority to enter into obligations, but not the 

authority to liquidate those obligations. The authority to liquidate 

obligations—to actually spend the money committed with the contract authority—must be provided separately. The authority to liquidate obligations under the Federal-aid highway 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 $10,312,248,000 less 

than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted 

level. This level of liquidating authority is necessary to pay outstanding obligations from various highway accounts pursuant to 

this and prior appropriations acts. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Section 120 distributes obligation authority among Federal-aid 

Highway programs. 

Section 121 continues a provision that credits funds received by 

the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the Federal-aid highways account. 

Section 122 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy America requirements. 
53 

Section 123 requires congressional notification before the Department provides credit assistance under the TIFIA program. 

Section 124 makes contract authority available for FHWA’s administrative expenses. 

Section 125 allows current truck weight limitations to remain in 

place for roads designated as I–69 in Texas and for a portion of a 

road designated as I–555 in Arkansas. 

Section 126 allows State DOTs to repurpose certain highway 

project funding to be used within 50 miles of its original designation. 

Section 127 provides a limited agricultural exemption for trucks 

during harvest months. 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] was 

established within the Department of Transportation by the Motor 

Carrier Safety Improvement Act [MCSIA] (Public Law 106–159) in 

December 1999. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier safety responsibilities were under the jurisdiction of the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

MCSIA, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU], and the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act [MAP–21] provide 

funding authorization for FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs and Motor Carrier Safety Grants. 

FMCSA’s mission is to promote safe commercial motor vehicle 

and motor coach operations, as well as reduce the number and severity of accidents. Agency resources and activities prevent and 

mitigate commercial motor vehicle and motor coach accidents 

through education, regulation, enforcement, stakeholder training, 

technological innovation, and improved information systems. 

FMCSA is also responsible for ensuring that all commercial vehicles entering the United States along its southern and northern 

borders comply with all Federal motor carrier safety and hazardous 

materials regulations. To accomplish these activities, FMCSA 

works with Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies, the 

motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and the public. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total level of $572,000,000 for obligations and liquidations from the Highway Trust Fund. This level 

is $96,523,000 less than the request and $12,000,000 less than the 

fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 
54 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2015 ..................................................................................... $271,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 329,180,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 259,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 259,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources to support motor 

carrier safety program activities and maintain the agency’s administrative infrastructure. Funding supports nationwide motor carrier 

safety and consumer enforcement efforts, including Federal safety 

enforcement activities at the United States-Mexico border to ensure 

that Mexican carriers entering the United States are in compliance 

with FMCSA regulations. Resources are also provided to fund 

motor carrier regulatory development and implementation, information management, research and technology, safety education 

and outreach, and the 24-hour safety and consumer telephone hotline. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization of 

$259,000,000 for FMCSA’s Operations and Programs. The recommendation is $12,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted 

level and $70,180,000 less than the budget request. The recommended level of funding is consistent with MAP–21 and does not 

continue the repurposing of unobligated balances from previous fiscal years. 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 for information management. 

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. MAP–21 mandated that FMCSA issue a 

rule by October 2013, but the agency failed to issue its proposed 

rule until March 2014. The Committee supports the expanded use 

of ELDs, encourages FMCSA to work aggressively to implement 

the ELD mandate, and directs the FMCSA to publish its final rule 

on ELDs no later than 60 days after enactment of this act. 

Heavy Vehicle Speed Limiters.—A coalition of trucking industry 

and safety advocates petitioned the Department in 2006 to initiate 

a rulemaking mandating all class 7 and 8 trucks to have their top 

speeds electronically limited to no more than 65 miles per hour. 

NHTSA finally granted this petition in 2011 and has been developing a proposed rulemaking with FMCSA that would consider new 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the installation of 

speed limiting devices. The agency has stated that the rulemaking 
55 

would have minimal costs and decrease fatal crashes, but has delayed publication of the proposed rule 21 times. The Committee directs the Department to complete its proposed rule within 60 days 

of enactment of this act. 

High-Risk Carriers.—Under FMCSA regulations, carriers identified as mandatory must have a compliance review conducted within 

1 year. The FMCSA’s compliance with this requirement has improved significantly, from completing reviews of 69 percent of highrisk carriers in fiscal year 2008 to 94 percent in the 2013 calendar 

year. Yet the backlog of carriers remaining in mandatory status 

that have not been investigated, gone out of business, or switched 

to intrastate operations continues to grow. FMCSA contends that 

the tracking and monitoring of high-risk carriers is a manually intensive process, particularly for carriers operating under consent 

decrees. In order to automate these systems and provide a higher 

level of safety compliance review, the Committee provided additional resources in Public Law 113–235 and directed FMCSA to 

provide a plan for the required information technology [IT] investments. To date, no such plan has been provided to the Committee. 

The Committee again directs FMCSA to provide its plan for IT automation prior to obligating any funding for this purpose. The Committee also 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 

15, 2016 for the preceding fiscal year. 

Online Safety Performance Data.—A key component of FMCSA’s 

Compliance, Safety, Accountability [CSA] program is the Safety 

Measurement System [SMS] which uses carrier performance data 

from inspections and investigations to calculate safety scores and 

identify those at high risk of causing a crash. In 2014, the GAO 

identified major challenges that limit the precision of the SMS 

scores and their ability to compare safety performance across carriers. As a result, GAO recommended that FMCSA revise the SMS 

methodology. At a March 4, 2015, hearing before the Commerce 

Committee, the GAO testified that, ‘‘without efforts to revise its 

SMS methodology, FMCSA will not be able to effectively target its 

intervention resources toward the highest risk carriers and will be 

challenged to meet its mission of reducing the overall crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses.’’ Due to these 

concerns, GAO recommended that FMCSA not publicize the flawed 

SMS scores on the agency’s Web site and to only use the scores for 

targeting enforcement efforts. 

Yet just 2 weeks later on March 17, 2015, FMCSA released a 

smartphone app called QC Mobile (QC standing for Query Central) 

that further publicizes its flawed safety performance data scores on 

a handheld device, in direct opposition of GAO’s recommendations. 

While the Committee acknowledges that agencies do not always 

concur with GAO recommendations, it is deeply troubled by 

FMCSA’s lack of willingness to address reasonable concerns about 

its safety performance data. The Committee directs FMCSA to 

prominently display on any Web site, smartphone app, or other 

electronic medium that provides carriers’ SMS scores a disclaimer 

highlighting GAO’s concerns and recommendations about the SMS 
56 

methodology, and warning users that SMS scores are not necessarily reliable indicators of relative safety performance. 

Specially Constructed Rail Service Vehicles.—The Committee is 

concerned that FMCSA’s Federal hours of service regulations, 

found in 49 CFR subsection 395.3, may not take into account the 

unique operating environment of specially trained drivers of commercial motor vehicles specifically constructed to service, inspect, 

maintain, and repair railroad track to support railroad safety and 

operations. The Committee encourages the FMCSA to collaborate 

with the rail service stakeholder community to consider an exemption for these rail service providers such that on-duty time could 

not include waiting time at a rail site. Instead, waiting time could 

be recorded as ‘‘off duty’’ for purposes of subsection 395.8 and 

395.15, and waiting time could not be included in calculating the 

14-hour period in section 395.3(a)(2), the 60-hour period in section 

395.3(b)(1), or the 70-hour period in section 395.3(b)(2). This collaboration shall include providing technical assistance to the rail 

service stakeholder community as it considers an application for exemption from these specifics hours of service regulations. 

Windshield Mounted Safety Technologies.—Current FMCSA regulations restrict the ability to mount vehicle safety technologies on 

windshields in order to prevent obstruction of a driver’s field of 

view. The agency has in the past recognized the benefits of these 

technologies and granted short-term exemptions in cases where the 

level of safety is not reduced. The Committee directs the Secretary 

to prescribe, no later than 180 days after the enactment of this act, 

regulations modifying 49 CFR 393.60(e) to permanently allow the 

voluntary mounting on a vehicle’s windshield of vehicle safety technology likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or 

greater than, the level of safety that would be achieved absent such 

exemption. Vehicle safety technologies to be considered include 

fleet-related incident management systems, driver performance/behavior management systems, speed management systems, lane departure warning systems, forward collision warning and/or mitigation systems, active cruise control systems, and any other technologies deemed applicable by the Secretary. Technologies that had 

a short-term exemption under 49 CFR part 381 in effect on January 1, 2015, shall be considered likely to achieve a level of safety 

that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would 

be achieved absent such exemption. 

Natural Gas Vehicle Regulations.—The Committee recognizes the 

significant growth and value in the market for natural gas as a 

transportation fuel and is aware that certain DOT regulations that 

address the safety of natural gas vehicles have not been updated 

to keep pace with new developments and the advancement of natural gas vehicles. Accordingly, the Department is encouraged to develop new safety regulations and inspection procedures for liquefied 

natural gas [LNG] fuel tanks and fuel systems on commercial 

motor vehicles, and revise and harmonize requirements for compressed natural gas [CNG] cylinders that address the inspection of 

such cylinders. The Department is also expected to work with industry and manufacturers to clarify and address the ability of bus 

manufacturers to continue to deploy buses that have roof-top 

mounted CNG cylinders. In addition, as there are no Federal regu-
57 

lations that prohibit the interstate movement of natural gas vehicles as it relates to the fuel stored onboard these vehicles for motive power, the Secretary shall clarify through guidance that, rules 

restricting access to bridges and tunnels in the case of an alternative fuel vehicle should not be any more restrictive than those 

addressing gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriations, 2015 .................................................................................................. $313,000,000 $313,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ............................................................................................... 339,343,000 339,343,000 

House allowance ......................................................................................................... 313,000,000 313,000,000 

Committee recommendation ....................................................................................... 313,000,000 313,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources for Federal grants 

to support State compliance, enforcement, and other programs. 

Grants are also provided to States for enforcement efforts at both 

the southern and northern borders to ensure that all points of 

entry into the United States are fortified with comprehensive safety measures; improvement of State commercial driver’s license 

[CDL] oversight activities to prevent unqualified drivers from being 

issued CDLs; and the Performance Registration Information Systems and Management [PRISM] program, which links State motor 

vehicle registration systems with carrier safety data in order to 

identify unsafe commercial motor carriers. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization of 

$313,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended 

limitation is equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and 

$26,343,000 less than the budget request. The Committee recommends a separate limitation on obligations for each grant program funded under this account with the funding allocation identified below. The obligation limitation listed below for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP] includes $218,000,000 for 

High Priority grants, of which $32,000,000 is for New Entrant 

grants. 

Amount 

Motor carrier safety assistance program [MCSAP] ....................................................................................... $218,000,000 

Commercial driver’s license program improvement grants .......................................................................... 30,000,000 

Border enforcement grants ............................................................................................................................ 32,000,000 

Performance and registration information system management grant program ......................................... 5,000,000 

Commercial vehicle information systems and networks deployment program ............................................. 25,000,000 

Safety data improvement grants ................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 
58 

MCSAP Grants.—The MCSAP grant program, as currently au- thorized under MAP–21, provides $218 million to States to help reduce the number and severity of crashes and related fatalities and 

injuries involving commercial motor vehicles. States can use 

MCSAP grants for multiple purposes, such as roadside inspections 

of large trucks and buses, and compliance reviews and safety audits of motor carriers, to assist FMCSA in detecting and correcting 

vehicle safety defects, driver deficiencies, and unsafe motor carrier 

practices before they become contributing factors to crashes. Roadside inspections conducted in conjunction with traffic enforcement 

stops have declined 36 percent from 2011 to 2014. Moreover, in 

2013, DOT reported Antideficiency Act violations related to 

FMCSA’s mismanagement of several grant programs including 

MCSAP. Because of these concerns, the Committee directs the OIG 

to conduct an audit to evaluate FMCSA’s policies, procedures, and 

processes for ensuring MCSAP grantees’ compliance with Federal 

requirements, and for tracking and monitoring MCSAP grant oversight activities. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

ADMNINSTRATION

Section 130(a) 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 130(b) removes an annual reporting requirement for the 

OIG. 

Section 131 requires FMCSA to send notices of 49 C.F.R. section 

385.308 violations in such a way that receipt of the notice is confirmed. 

Section 132 allows States that issued Commercial License Permits [CLPs] to individuals under age 18 prior to the May 9, 2011, 

rulemaking to continue to do so. FMCSA established a minimum 

age of 18 for issuance of a CLP without awareness of existing State 

rules and regulations at that time. In many States, commercial 

truck driving programs are offered through vocational training programs and the Job Corps targeted at students between the ages of 

16 and 18. These programs help students prepare to drive commercial vehicles at age 18 and on the interstates after age 21, which 

are the minimum ages for Commercial Driver Licenses in all 

States. 

Section 133 limits funding from being used to deny the renewal 

of a hazardous material safety permit under certain conditions. 

The Committee urges FMCSA to expedite a rulemaking process 

to address this important issue. 

Section 134 allows the Secretary of Transportation to continue 

the suspension of certain provisions of the Hours of Service restart 

rule if the study required by Congress in Public Law 113–164, does 

not demonstrate that the July 1, 2013, restart provisions resulted 

in statistically significant net safety benefits. 

Section 135 limits funds for the Secretary of Transportation to 

increase minimum financial responsibility levels for motor carriers 

until 60 days after the Secretary submits a report on the impact 

of raising minimum financial responsibility levels. 
59 

Section 136 clarifies that certain commercial regulations that do 

not impact safety are not applicable to summer camps. 

Section 137 extends the current 28 feet minimum requirement 

for a semitrailer or trailer operating in a truck tractor semitrailertrailer combination to 33 feet. The bill also provides authority to 

a State Department of Transportation, in addition to the existing 

authority for a Governor, to request an exemption for any segment 

of the National Highway Network, if it is not capable of safely accommodating a commercial motor vehicle at the 33-foot configuration. The Secretary of Transportation is directed to provide quarterly to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a consolidated list of State exemptions and the analysis used to determine such findings. The Secretary also is directed to provide a 

crash data analysis report comparing twin 28-foot configurations to 

33-foot configurations to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 3 years from the date of enactment of this act. Additionally, the Secretary is directed to make recommendations as to 

whether the adoption of any technologies, such as collision avoidance and stability control, would improve safety. Finally, the Secretary is directed to ensure, through guidance, that States are 

made aware of existing authority in law to determine which routes 

off the National Network can be restricted to trucks without going 

through a formal process. This authority may be used by States to 

ensure that longer twin trailers are not able to access local downtown roadways or other highway or bridge infrastructure that may 

not be designed to support them. 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Government’s regulatory role in motor vehicle and 

highway safety began in September of 1966 with the enactment of 

the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the 

Highway Safety Act of 1966. In October 1966, these activities, 

originally under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, 

were transferred to the Department of Transportation to be carried 

out through the National Traffic Safety Bureau within the Federal 

Highway Administration. In March 1970, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation. 

NHTSA is responsible for motor vehicle safety, highway safety 

behavioral programs, motor vehicle information, and automobile 

fuel economy programs. NHTSA’s current programs are authorized 

in five major laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code [U.S.C.]); (2) the 

Highway Safety Act (chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor 

Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act [MVICSA] (part C of 

subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.); the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation [TREAD] Act; (5) the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU]; and (6) Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act [MAP–21]. 

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides for the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for 
60 

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 as 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

Continuing a long term trend, the number of people who died in 

traffic crashes in 2013 declined to 32,719, which was a 3.1 percent 

decrease from the previous year and a nearly 25 percent decline in 

overall highway deaths since 2004. The estimated number of people 

injured in crashes also declined by 2.1 percent. This decline in traffic fatalities continues a long-term downward trend leading to the 

fatality rate matching a historic low of 1.10 deaths per 100 million 

vehicle miles traveled. As the volume of freight and passenger vehicles on our highways continues to grow, NHTSA and its State partners must remain diligent to prevent further increases in the number of fatalities. The Committee recommends $824,500,000 for 

NHTSA to maintain current programs and continue its mission to 

save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce vehicle-related crashes. 
61 

This level includes both budget authority and limitations on the obligation of contract authority. This funding is $83,500,000 less than 

the President’s request and $5,500,000 less than the fiscal year 

2015 enacted level. 

The following table summarizes Committee recommendations: 

General fund Highway trust 

fund Total 

Appropriation 2015 .................................................................................... $130,000,000 $700,000,000 $830,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 .............................................................................. ........................ 908,000,000 908,000,000 

House allowance ........................................................................................ 152,800,000 686,500,000 839,300,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 130,500,000 694,000,000 824,500,000 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

General fund Highway trust fund Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ................................................................. $130,000,000 $138,500,000 $268,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 .............................................................................. ........................ 331,000,000 331,000,000 

House allowance ........................................................................................ 152,800,000 125,000,000 277,800,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 130,500,000 118,500,000 249,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These programs support traffic safety programs and related research, demonstrations, technical assistance, and national leadership for highway safety programs conducted by State and local governments, the private sector, universities, research units, and various safety associations and organizations. These highway safety 

programs emphasize alcohol and drug countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law enforcement, emergency medical and 

trauma care systems, traffic records and licensing, State and community traffic safety evaluations, protection of motorcycle riders, 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety, pupil transportation, distracted 

driving prevention, young and older driver safety, and improved accident investigation procedures. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $249,000,000 for Operations and Research, which includes funding for the National Driver Register. 

This level of funding is $82,000,000 less than the President’s budget request and $19,500,000 less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted 

level. Of the total amount recommended for Operations and Research, $130,500,000 is derived from the general fund and 

$118,500,000 is derived from the Highway Trust Fund, of which 

$5,000,000 is for the National Driver Register. The Committee recommendation also repurposes $14,000,000 in unobligated balances 

from Highway Traffic Safety Grants, of which $10,000,000 is for 

highway safety research and development and $4,000,000 is for vehicle safety research, which provides a total of $263,000,000 for Operations and Research. The Committee recommendation includes 

$7,900,000 for the Fuel Economy Program, $10,000,000 for the New 

Car Assessment Program, and $9,140,000 for Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

Crash Data Collection.—In fiscal year 2012, the Committee provided one-time funding to support data modernization efforts for 
62 

the National Automotive Sampling System that provides crash 

data on a nationally representative sample of police-reported motor 

vehicle crashes. The Committee directed the agency to both expand 

the scope and increase the sample size of its data collection to improve the precision of the statistical estimates and to take a comprehensive review of the data elements collected from each site to 

provide more relevant information for policy makers. The funds are 

being used to design two new samples, purchase better equipment 

for the technicians, consolidate and improve the underlying IT and 

begin phasing in the new systems. Over the next few years, 

NHTSA will transition to two new crash sample systems, known as 

Crash Investigation Sampling System [CISS] and the Crash Report 

Sampling System [CRSS], which are expected to generate key crash 

estimates that are more accurate than those generated with the 

current data systems. 

In order to further increase the sample size of crashes and ensure a smooth transition to the new systems, the Committee provides at least $34,205,000 for Crash Data Collection. This funding 

level supports not only CISS and CRSS, but also the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, Special Crash Investigations, the State 

Data System, and the Not in Traffic Surveillance system. The Committee is aware of delays in setting up new crash sites due to the 

Department’s flawed interpretation of OMB Memo 12–12 and expects such issues to be resolved in a timely manner going forward. 

Office of Defects Investigation [ODI].—The Safety Defects Investigation program investigates possible defect trends, and where appropriate, seeks recalls of vehicles and vehicle equipment that pose 

an unreasonable safety risk. To perform this mission, NHTSA 

maintains the collection of early warning reporting data submitted 

by manufacturers to the Advanced Retrieval Tire, Equipment, 

Motor Vehicle Information System, as well as complaints from vehicle owners, recalls, and crash investigations. The agency then 

analyzes the early warning data to determine whether anomalies 

or trends exist that potentially indicate the presence of a safety-related problem. 

The Committee recommendation includes funding for an additional 13 FTE for ODI to process and analyze data collection from 

consumer complaints and to conduct investigations. The Committee 

further directs the agency to conduct inquiries on all death claims 

related to vehicle safety defects. This funding builds on the additional funding provided last year to support the implementation 

and maintenance of the electronic document and records management system corporate information factory to allow the agency to 

have more transparency to its data and enable faster, more reliable 

results for defect screeners and investigators. 

Plastics and Polymer Composite Materials.—The Committee recognizes the importance that plastics and polymer-based composite 

materials play in reducing vehicle weight. They provide vehicle 

manufacturers with innovative tools to reduce fuel consumption 

and, by association, vehicle emissions, including air toxics and 

greenhouse gasses. As manufacturers plan for future fleets, composite materials offer benefits for meeting new targets established 

under NHTSA’s recent vehicle fuel efficiency rules. At the same 

time, the Committee recognizes that composite manufacturing is a 
63 

new and growing industry, providing highly skilled jobs in the 

automotive industry. The Committee directs NHTSA to use funding 

provided for the Fuel Economy program to accelerate the advancement of the state of the art for computer modeling of advanced 

plastic and polymer composites, including testing and evaluation 

techniques, while validating the safety performance of polymerbased composites in structural applications for the automotive industry. The program will help facilitate a foundation of cooperation 

between DOT, the Department of Energy, and industry stakeholders for the development of safety-centered approaches for future light-weight automotive design. 

Distracted Driving Research.—NHTSA recently issued research 

and guidelines on distracted driving that do not consider the issue 

of cognitive distraction due to its reliance solely on a naturalistic 

methodology to determine safety impact. The Committee is aware 

of multiple research methodologies currently used to measure various aspects of distracted driving and is concerned that the agency’s over-reliance on naturalistic research. The Committee directs 

NHTSA to consider multiple research methodologies, including epidemiological and simulator studies, equally to measure the safety 

impacts of distracted driving going forward. 

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 is aware of recent surveys which demonstrate that there has been a substantial increase in public 

awareness of the dangers of hyperthermia and changes in behavior 

by parents, which has helped reduce the number of child deaths to 

30 in 2014, the second lowest since 1998. The Committee supports 

the agency’s plan to continue a broad, coordinated national campaign along the lines of the successful efforts more than a decade 

ago that convinced more parents and caregivers to place children 

12 years of age and younger in safer rear seats. The Committee encourages the NHTSA to coordinate with the FHWA to encourage 

State highway offices to use existing communications platforms 

such as dynamic highway message signs to enhance ongoing awareness programs during the hot weather season. The Committee directs NHTSA to coordinate with industry to provide an assessment 

of available, voluntary products or technologies that can serve as 

a reminder to parents to unbuckle and remove children from the 

back seat prior to exiting their vehicle. The agency shall submit its 

assessment to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 days of enactment of this act. 

Road Safety Innovation.—The Committee is pleased that the Department recently announced the acceleration of its public time 

table for its proposal to require vehicle-to-vehicle [V2V] communication devices in new vehicles including expediting the testing to 

determine the feasibility of sharing arrangements to allow for the 

operation of unlicensed devices within the relevant band. The Committee strongly supports finalizing the proposed rule as quickly as 

possible given the potential for these new innovative technologies 

to greatly enhance road safety and directs NHTSA to report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of 
64 

enactment of this act on the status of implementation of the final 

rule. 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of 

contract 

authorization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriations, 2015 .......................................................................................................... $561,500,000 $561,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................................................... 577,000,000 577,000,000 

House allowance ................................................................................................................. 561,500,000 561,500,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 575,500,000 575,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The most recent surface authorization, MAP–21, reauthorized occupant protection grants, State traffic safety information grants, 

impaired driving countermeasures grants, motorcycle safety grants, 

and consolidated them under a new National Priority Safety Program (23 U.S.C. 405). The bill also created three new grant programs within the National Priority Safety Program: State graduated driver license grants, distracted driving grants, and in-vehicle alcohol detection device research. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization of 

$575,500,000 for the highway traffic safety grant programs funded 

under this heading, of which $14,000,000 shall be repurposed for 

operations and research. The recommended limitation is $1,500,000 

less than the budget estimate and $14,000,000 above the fiscal year 

2015 enacted level. 

The Committee continues to recommend prohibiting the use of 

section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling 

costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for State, local, or private buildings or structures. 

The authorized funding for administrative expenses and for each 

grant program is as follows: 

Amount 

Highway Safety Programs (section 402) ............................................................................................................. $235,000,000 

National Priority Safety Programs (section 405) ................................................................................................. 272,000,000 

High Visibility Enforcement Program ................................................................................................................... 29,000,000 

Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 25,500,000 

Repurposed for Operations and Research (Vehicle Safety Research) ................................................................ 4,000,000 

Repurposed for Operations and Research (Highway Safety R&D) ...................................................................... 10,000,000 

Drunk Driving Prevention.—Since 2008, NHTSA has partnered 

with leading automobile manufacturers in the Automotive Coalition 

for Traffic Safety [ACTS] on an ambitious research program to develop in-vehicle technology to prevent alcohol-impaired driving that 

is publicly acceptable, unobtrusive for drivers below the legal limit 
65 

of .08 BAC, reliable, and relatively inexpensive. To date, progress 

has been significant, including the identification of two competing 

technological approaches which are being installed in research vehicles for pilot field testing. The Committee continues to strongly 

support this promising research partnership, which has the potential to prevent thousands of drunk driving deaths annually. The 

Committee recommends $5,440,000 for ACTS to continue this research, which is $134,000 less than the budget request and equal 

to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Committee directs the 

agency to submit the annual report required by subsection 

403(h)(4) of title 23, United States Code to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations. 

The Committee also recognizes that MAP–21 included 24/7 Sobriety Programs as an eligible activity that States can use to address 

alcohol-impaired driving. Over 10,000 people die each year as a result of alcohol-impaired driving. According to NHTSA, 12 percent 

of intoxicated drivers involved in fatal crashes had at least one 

prior driving while intoxicated [DWI] conviction in the past 3 years. 

NHTSA studies also show that intoxicated drivers with prior DWI 

convictions had over 4 times the risk of being in a fatal crash as 

intoxicated drivers without a prior DWI and fatal crash risk increases with the number of prior DWI arrests. Given the significant challenge of repeat impaired driving offenders, some States 

have turned to 24/7 Sobriety Programs that enables convicted repeat offenders to enroll in a program that prohibits consuming any 

alcohol for a period of time. A 24/7 Sobriety Program can protect 

the public against alcohol-impaired driving crashes, while enabling 

participants to seek treatment for and recover from alcohol abuse, 

and be a productive member of society. The Committee supports 

24/7 Sobriety Programs as another approach that States can adopt 

to combat high recidivist impaired drivers and encourages NHTSA 

to work with States to make more extensive use of this program. 

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 
66 

safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry. 

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

and other financial assistance programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry’s physical infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad Administration. 

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $186,870,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 203,800,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 190,370,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 199,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA rail 

safety activities and all other administrative and operating activities related to staff and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recognizes the importance of taking a holistic approach to improving railroad safety and supports a comprehensive 

strategy of data-driven regulatory and inspection efforts, proactive 

approaches to identify and mitigate risks, and strategic capital investments in order to improve safety. While the FRA has made 

progress, it is evident that more still must be done. In the last 

year, several high profile incidents underscore the importance of 

targeting Federal resources to those most pressing rail safety 

issues. Accidents like the freight train derailments near Galena, Illinois, in Fayette County, West Virginia, and Heimdal, North Dakota, as well as the passenger train collisions in Valhalla, New 

York, Oxnard, California, and Halifax, North Carolina, emphasize 

that the FRA’s top priority must be to ensure the safe, reliable and 

efficient transportation of people and goods throughout the Nation. The Committee recommends $199,000,000 for Safety and Operations for fiscal year 2016, which is $4,800,000 less than the budget request and $12,130,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted 

level. The bill specifies that $15,900,000 shall remain available 

until expended to cover the cost of the Automated Track Inspection 

Program, the Railroad Safety Information System, the Southeastern Transportation Study, research and development activities, 

contract support, and Alaska Railroad liabilities. The increase in 

funding supports the annualization of fiscal year 2015 safety personnel, as well as several safety initiatives requested in fiscal year 

2016 as described below. The Committee remains concerned about 

the difficulty FRA has experienced in achieving the current authorized staffing level in recent years, and appreciates that the agency 

is finally acting quickly to fill its authorized positions. The Committee is encouraged by FRA’s recent progress, including its efforts 

to account for attrition in its hiring plans as well as pursuing alternative avenues to recruit and hire qualified individuals when there 

is a severe shortage of candidates or a critical hiring need. 

Safe Transport of Energy Products.—The Committee’s recommendation includes an increase of $3,400,000 to support FRA’s 

efforts to improve the safe transport of energy products. The STEP 

initiative supports additional crude oil safety inspectors, crude oil 
67 

route safety managers, and tank car quality assurance specialists, 

as well as supports increased mileage of a dedicated Automated 

Track Inspection Program vehicle on routes with energy products 

traffic. 

Passenger Railroad Safety.—The Committee’s recommendation 

includes an increase of $1,900,000 to improve passenger railroad 

safety. This initiative supports additional safety staff to help develop and implement passenger rail risk reduction system safety 

programs and additional passenger rail inspectors to conduct comprehensive safety culture and compliance reviews, as well as improve safety culture through the Clear Signal for Action program, 

a voluntary, non-punitive program for identification and mitigation 

of unsafe practices, and to study passenger rail electrification 

standards. 

Grade Crossing and Pedestrian Safety.—The Committee’s recommendation includes an increase of $1,000,000 to reduce grade 

crossing incidents and increase pedestrian safety. This initiative 

supports additional grade crossing safety managers and trespass 

prevention managers, as well as for Operation Lifesaver, and to 

support a grade crossing and trespass prevention workshop. 

RRIF Administration and Oversight.—The Committee’s recommendation includes an increase of $250,000 to support one additional RRIF financial specialist. 

Automated Track Inspection Program.—The Automated Track Inspection Program [ATIP] provides track geometry information, as 

well as other track-related performance data, to assess compliance 

with Federal Track Safety Standards. The data collected under 

ATIP is used by FRA inspectors and by railroads to ensure proper 

track maintenance and to assess track safety trends within the industry. The Committee supports FRA’s efforts to expand the use of 

ATIP vehicles, including autonomous ATIP vehicles, to support the 

inspection of crude oil routes. 

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $39,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 39,250,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 39,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 39,100,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Railroad Research and Development program provides 

science and technology support for FRA’s rail safety rulemaking 

and enforcement efforts. It also supports technological advances in 

conventional and high-speed railroads, as well as evaluations of the 

role of railroads in the Nation’s transportation system. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,100,000 for railroad Research and Development, which is $150,000 less than 

the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

Short Line Safety Institute.—Short Line railroads operate approximately 50,000 miles of track, which is one-third of the national railroad network. They are an important feeder system for 

the larger Class I railroads, helping connect local communities to 
68 

the national railroad network. There are 550 short line railroads 

operating in the United States, 73 of which currently handle some 

volume of crude oil. The safety management system of short lines 

is extremely varied. Many small railroads with limited personnel 

and limited financial capital need additional resources to conduct 

hazardous materials safety training and other operational safety 

assessments. The Committee supports FRA’s efforts, in partnership 

with short line and regional railroads, to continue to build a stronger, sustainable safety culture in this segment of the rail industry. 

To date, several Class III railroads, including those that transport 

crude oil, have received safety conformance assessments in order to 

improve railroad safety culture. The Committee’s recommendation 

includes $2,000,000 to further the Short Line Safety Institute’s 

mission, including continued efforts to improve the safe transportation of crude oil and other hazardous materials by rail. 

Safe Transportation of LNG.—There has been an increased interest in transporting Liquefied Natural Gas [LNG] by railroad, both 

as a fuel to be transported for use elsewhere and as a fuel source 

to power locomotives. The Committee’s recommendation includes 

$2,000,000 for the FRA, in collaboration with PHMSA, to accelerate 

its research and development on the safe transportation of LNG. 

This amount will allow the FRA to finish the work it began in fiscal year 2015 as well as for reviewing international specifications. 

Tank Car Research.—The Committee’s recommendation includes 

$500,000 to continue tank car research activities, including physical testing at the Transportation Technology Center. 

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 2016 with the exception of permissions granted under section 152 of this act. The Committee directs FRA to continue to provide a summary of loan activity for the preceding fiscal years in its fiscal year 2017 budget justification. At a minimum, FRA should detail the number of loans 

pending and issued, and the processing time for these loans. 

RAILROAD SAFETY GRANTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $50,000,000 
69 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Railroad Safety Grants account provides support for three 

rail safety grant programs as authorized by Public Law 110–432. 

The Railroad Safety Infrastructure Improvement Grants program 

supports railroad infrastructure, including the acquisition, improvement, or rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including track, bridges, tunnels, yards, buildings, passenger stations, facilities, and maintenance and repair shops. The 

Railroad Safety Technology Grants program supports the deployment of train control technologies, train control component technologies, process-based technologies, electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, rail integrity inspection systems, rail integrity warning systems, switch position indicators and monitors, remote control power switch technologies, track integrity circuit technologies, 

and other new or novel railroad safety technology. The Federal 

Grants to States for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety program 

supports safety improvements, including the installation, repair, or 

improvement of highway-rail grade crossings, as well as enhanced 

public education and awareness activities to prevent and reduce injuries and fatalities along railroad rights-of-way. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Railroad Safety 

Grants account, which is $50,000,000 more than the budget request 

and $50,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

Railroad Safety Infrastructure Improvement Grants.—The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for Railroad Safety Infrastructure 

Improvement Grants program, as authorized by section 418 of Public Law 110–432. 

Railroad Safety Technology Grants.—The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Railroad Safety Technology Grants 

program, as authorized by section 105 of Public Law 110–432. 

Federal Grants to States for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Federal 

Grants to States for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety program, 

for projects as defined in section 207 of Public Law 110–432. 

THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) operates 

intercity passenger rail services in 46 States and the District of Columbia, in addition to serving as a contractor in various capacities 

for several commuter rail agencies. Congress created Amtrak in the 

Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (Public Law 91–518) in response to private carriers’ inability to profitably operate intercity 

passenger rail service. Thereafter, Amtrak assumed the common 

carrier obligations of the private railroads in exchange for the right 

to priority access to their tracks for incremental cost. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 

$1,390,000,000 for Amtrak, which is equal to the fiscal year 2015 
70 

enacted level. The administration’s budget request would shift 

funding for Amtrak into a new $2,450,000,000 Current Passenger 

Rail Service program that would be supported by a new dedicated 

Rail Account of the Transportation Trust Fund. 

Budget, Business Plan, and the 5-Year Financial Plan.—The 

Committee maintains requirements for Amtrak to submit a business plan and 5-Year Financial Plan for fiscal year 2016. The Corporation shall continue to submit a budget request for fiscal year 

2017 to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in 

similar format and substance to those submitted by executive agencies of the Federal Government. 

FRA Grant Administration and Report Streamlining.—The Committee recognizes that Amtrak fields a myriad of grant requirements from the FRA. The Committee is supportive of robust oversight by the FRA; however, to the extent practicable, the FRA is 

encouraged to work with Amtrak to reduce duplication and streamline their report requirements. 

Section 209.—States with intercity passenger rail service under 

750 miles in length have assumed a far greater share of the cost 

of the service as required by section 209 of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2008 [PRIIA]. In 2012, the Surface Transportation Board [STB] determined that a methodology 

agreed upon by Amtrak and most of the affected States to establish 

and allocate costs for State-supported Amtrak routes met the requirements of section 209; and the STB directed Amtrak and the 

affected States to implement that methodology. However, much 

work remains in order to finalize that implementation. To this end, 

the Committee recognizes the importance of Amtrak and the States 

having an open dialogue and reaching a workable agreement on 

implementation of the section 209 methodology. Further, the Committee strongly urges both Amtrak and the States to continue to 

meet in person, along with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation 

Services under the sponsorship of the STB when appropriate, in 

order to reach closure on the remaining issues. The Committee recognizes that this is a hardship on many of the States; therefore, 

the bill allows the FRA to use its financial resources to provide assistance for administrative purposes such as travel to facilitation/ 

negotiation sessions, to States, the District of Columbia, and other 

public entities for the implementation of section 209. In addition, 

the Committee directs Amtrak to provide the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations with an annual report on the status 

of State contracts and payments. 

Integrating Service.—The Committee directs the FRA, in coordination with Amtrak, to identify those State-supported routes that 

are, at the time of enactment of this act, not physically connected 

to any other Amtrak route, service or station on Amtrak’s rail network, and to subsequently conduct a study on the feasibility of 

physically integrating such routes into Amtrak’s network. This 

study should include an analysis of projected ridership and revenue 

levels, impacts on service, and operating and capital costs, as well 

as the local economic impact of establishing an integrated service. 

In addition, the study should examine the infrastructure improvements necessary to facilitate an integrated service. The FRA is encouraged to focus its efforts on integration options that are most 
71 

cost effective, such as the utilization of railroad lines or rights-ofway that already exist, as opposed to options that would require 

the acquisition of property not currently used for rail transportation or the construction of a new bridge or tunnel where one does 

not currently exist. Further, in conducting its study, the FRA and 

Amtrak should consult with the appropriate sponsors of the Statesupported routes throughout the process. The Committee directs 

the FRA to submit its study to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation within 300 days after enactment of 

this act. 

Section 212.—The Committee commends the Northeast Corridor 

[NEC] Commission for adopting a new framework for regional collaboration and cost sharing among passenger rail operators on the 

corridor. It is the Committee’s expectation that, in fiscal year 2016, 

Amtrak and the NEC commuter railroads will implement and comply with the terms of the Cost Allocation Policy adopted by the 

Commission in fiscal year 2015. As such, any funds made available 

to Amtrak under this act, in order to support the Northeast Corridor, shall be used in accordance with the terms of the policy. 

Promoting Rail and Airport Connections.—The Committee supports efforts to improve intercity passenger rail connections at commercial airports that are adjacent to the mainline of the Northeast 

Corridor [NEC] and not currently served by Amtrak and directs 

FRA, in coordination with Amtrak, to study the feasibility of establishing service at such airports. Such an assessment of feasibility 

should include consideration of how intercity passenger service 

may complement existing or planned commuter passenger rail 

service at such stations and analyze the projected ridership and 

revenue levels, impacts on network service levels and performance, 

operating and capital costs, and local economic impacts associated 

with any service options. 

Update Plan for Restoration of Service.—The Committee directs 

Amtrak to update its Gulf Coast Service Plan report as mandated 

by Section 226 of Public Law 110–432. This updated report should 

take into consideration population and employment growth since 

2009; assess the local economic impact from the reestablished service and the potential for future development along the route that 

could potentially help support the service; and take into account 

the potential for utilizing existing rolling stock that is being replaced by Amtrak elsewhere via new acquisitions. In addition, the 

updated report should focus on the section of the route that currently does not have Amtrak passenger service. Amtrak shall determine with the host railroads the projected cost of any infrastructure investments to accommodate restoration of service. This includes installation of positive train control if required solely because of the restoration of Amtrak service and installation of a signal system on portions of the route outside terminal areas on which 

there is no signal system at the time of enactment. The Committee 

directs Amtrak to submit its updated report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, as well as the House Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on 
72 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation within 180 days after enactment of this act. 

Emergency Preparedness and Response.—Following the tragic accident of Amtrak Train 188 on May 12, 2015 in Philadelphia, it appears that first responders to the scene were timely, well-coordinated, and deeply committed to the safety of passengers and crew. 

However, there were some reports of confusion about the process 

for notification to passengers and family members, as well as the 

process for the return of personal property and claims. 

Under FRA regulations, Amtrak is required to implement emergency preparedness plans and conduct full-scale emergency simulations every year. Amtrak’s Emergency Management and Corporate 

Security [EMCS] department oversees preparedness and training 

programs so that Amtrak can provide for the safety of its passengers and employees in the case of an emergency. Amtrak also 

works closely with the National Transportation Safety Board 

[NTSB], which plays a role in coordinating support for passengers 

and family members in the event of a passenger rail accident resulting in a major loss of life. In addition to investigating the cause 

of the accident, NTSB provides information about its investigation 

to passengers’ family members; helps them access support services; 

and coordinates local, State and Federal assets for disaster response and family assistance. NTSB also provides advice to Amtrak 

and other transportation modes on planning for family assistance 

in the case of an accident. 

The Committee directs Amtrak to fully participate in the NTSB’s 

post-accident evaluation of passenger support services that examines the roles and responsibilities of each agency, where there were 

gaps in communication both internal to each organization and with 

external stakeholders and victims. The Committee further directs 

Amtrak to revise its emergency response preparedness plans to incorporate lessons learned from the post-accident evaluation. Likewise, the Committee directs the NTSB to reevaluate its own policies and procedures in light of lessons learned as part of their 

usual post-accident review. Finally, the Committee directs Amtrak 

to ensure that its contact centers, customer support desk and incident hotline teams are trained on the revised procedures so that 

accident victims and their families are supported in these crisis situations. 

Passenger Rail in the Bakken Region.—The Committee recognizes the importance of improving the financial viability of Amtrak’s Empire Builder and the growth in demand for passenger rail 

services in the Bakken region. The Committee directs FRA, in coordination with Amtrak, to reevaluate previous Amtrak Empire 

Builder feasibility studies that were conducted within the last 4 

years which prove a financial benefit by adding a rail stop that 

generates revenue and reduces operating costs on the Empire 

Builder route. In addition, the evaluation should examine the infrastructure improvements necessary to facilitate the expansion of 

such services. The Committee directs Amtrak to report its findings 

and provide a copy of the feasibility study to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations no later than 1 year after the date 

of enactment of this act. 
73 

OPERATING GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $250,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... 288,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 288,500,000 

The Committee recommends $288,500,000 for Operating Grants to Amtrak, which is $38,500,000 above the fiscal year 2015 enacted 

level. The administration’s budget request would shift funding for 

Amtrak into a new $2,450,000,000 Current Passenger Rail Service 

program that would be supported by a new dedicated Rail Account 

of the Transportation Trust Fund. 

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. Each year, 

Amtrak is responsible for significant one-time cash outflows at the 

beginning of the calendar year. In order to help facilitate these 

payments, the Committee encourages the FRA to release adequate 

funding in the first quarter of the fiscal year in order to efficiently 

manage Amtrak’s financial obligations in a timely manner. 

Food and Beverage.—The Committee continues to be encouraged 

by Amtrak’s efforts at reducing food and beverage losses, including 

the various initiatives outlined in Amtrak’s 5-Year Strategic Plan 

to eliminate losses on its food and beverage services and in Amtrak’s 5-Year Financial Plan. Amtrak listed several cash management and revenue generating initiatives that it is undertaking in 

fiscal year 2015 in order to reduce food and beverage losses, as well 

as additional pilots planned for fiscal year 2016. Through a combination of labor optimization, improvements to on-board services 

and logistics, product development and supply chain efficiencies, 

ticket revenue allocation, and technology enhancements and process improvements, Amtrak projects that it will produce a net loss 

of zero on its food and beverage services by October 2018. 

The Committee directs Amtrak to provide a report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations 120 days after enactment of this act comparing the actual fiscal year 2015 savings with 

what Amtrak projected the savings to be in its 5-year plans. In addition, the report should include an update on the progress that 

Amtrak has made in reducing waste, fraud and abuse as related 

to food and beverage service since the 2011 Amtrak OIG report on 

this topic. 

Discounted Fares.—The bill continues a prohibition against funding on routes where Amtrak is offering 50 percent or more off the 

normal, peak fare. 

CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD

PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $1,140,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... 859,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,101,500,000 

The Committee recommends $1,101,500,000 for Capital and Debt 

Service Grants to Amtrak, which is $38,500,000 below the fiscal 

year 2015 enacted level. The administration’s budget request would 
74 

shift funding for Amtrak into a new $2,450,000,000 Current Passenger Rail Service program that would be supported by a new 

dedicated Rail Account of the Transportation Trust Fund. 

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. Amtrak reports that it has some degree 

of ADA responsibility at 369 stations, that it has provided mobile 

lifts at the 96 stations that have less than 7,500 riders annually, 

and that approximately 194 of the remaining 273 stations will need 

some type of set-back level boarding solution. Many of the platforms in these stations are owned by freight railroads and reconciling the requirements of existing freight traffic with the needs of 

passengers is a complex challenge. The Committee encourages Amtrak to use its funds to address compliance requirements that are 

the responsibility of other parties at the stations it serves where 

the work involved is not more than 10 percent of the cost of all 

ADA compliance work at that station, and where doing so would 

expedite completion of its compliance efforts and be a more efficient 

use of resources than compelling those parties to act. With the level 

of funding recommended by the Committee, Amtrak intends to advance construction at a total of 50 stations and intends to advance 

planning and design requirements for another 99 stations. By the 

end of the fiscal year 2015, Amtrak expects to complete work on 

a total of 36 stations. 

Northeast Corridor [NEC] Infrastructure Needs.—The Committee 

acknowledges that the NEC has a state-of-good repair backlog of 

more than $20,000,000,000. This includes several key components 

of electrical and signal systems that date back to the 1930s as well 

as critical bridges and tunnels that are more than 100 years old. 

According to the NEC Commission, the loss of the NEC for a single 

day could cost the country $100,000,000 in added congestion, productivity losses, and other transportation impacts. In order to address this challenge, Amtrak proposed $555,800,000 for a NEC capital grant program. While the Committee is sympathetic to the 

NEC state-of-good repair, under current budgetary constraints, the 

Committee can simply not afford to appropriate additional funding 

for a new grant program. Instead, section 153 of the bill makes 

prior year unobligated funding available for Capital Grants to the 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation for shared use infrastructure on the NEC. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 150 allows the Secretary to receive and use cash or spare 

parts to repair and replace damaged track inspection cars. 

Section 151 limits overtime payments to employees at Amtrak to 

$35,000 per employee. However, Amtrak’s president may waive 

this restriction for specific employees for safety or operational efficiency reasons. If the cap is waived, Amtrak must notify the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days and 

specify the reason for such waiver. 

Section 152 makes $4,201,385 in prior year unobligated funding 

available to assist class II and class III railroads with expenses re-
75 

lated to applying for loans and loan guarantees under the Railroad 

Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program. Section 153 makes $16,922,000 in prior year unobligated funding 

available for Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation for shared use infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor. For such grants, the FRA shall take into consideration a 

higher local match when approving Amtrak’s grant request. 

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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of $10,462,653,000 is provided for FTA programs in fiscal year 2016. 

The recommendation is $7,936,747,000 less than the budget request and $424,234,000 less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $105,933,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 1 ......................................................................... 114,400,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 97,933,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 107,000,000 

1The Administration requested this funding as a set-aside within the Formula Grants account. 

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 $107,000,000 from the 

general fund for the agency’s salaries and administrative expenses. 

The recommended level of funding is $7,400,000 less than the 

budget request, which assumed that FTA’s administrative expenses 

would be provided as a set-aside within the Formula Grants account. The Committee recommendation is also $1,067,000 above 
76 

the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. This funding level will support 

new responsibilities for safety oversight assigned to FTA in the 

most recent authorization act, MAP–21, as well as cover the costs 

of salaries and inflation. 

The Committee has recognized for several years now that FTA’s 

staffing has not kept up with its increasing responsibilities. Successive evaluations have concluded that FTA requires additional staff 

to support a steadily growing workload and improve its ability to 

perform project oversight, contract administration, and technical 

assistance. The Committee acknowledges MAP–21 added significant new burdens, including standing up a new safety office. The 

recommendation supports additional staffing for the Office of Transit Safety and Oversight. 

The Committee again notes the lack of information about the additional resources requested in the Administrative Expenses section of the congressional justification. Although FTA provides this 

information upon request, the cost, location, composition and other 

details that support the budget should be included in the justification. The Committee directs FTA to provide this information in its 

justification for any staff increases it requests in future years. In 

addition, the Committee directs FTA to provide information on the 

staffing and funding requirements of each individual FTA office in 

its fiscal year 2017 submission. 

Project Management Oversight [PMO] Activities.—The Committee 

directs FTA to continue to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the quarterly PMO reports for each 

project with a full funding grant agreement. 

Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].—MAP–21 requires 

that FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking, 30 days before 

executing a full funding grant agreement. In its notification to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Committee 

directs FTA to submit the following information: (1) a copy of the 

proposed full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual 

Federal appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly and 

total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated for 

existing FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2019; (4) a detailed 

analysis of annual commitments for current and anticipated 

FFGAs against the program authorization, by individual project; 

(5) 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; (6) the source and security of all public 

and private sector financing; (7) the project’s operating plan, which 

enumerates the project’s future revenue and ridership forecasts; 

and (8) 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 
77 

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 

Capital Investment Grant program update to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, detailing the status of each 

project. This update should include anticipated 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 Capital Investment Grant program is given approval by FTA 

to advance to project development or engineering. 

FORMULA GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Obligation limitation 

(trust fund) 

Appropriations, 2015 ........................................................................................................................................ $8,595,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 .................................................................................................................................... 13,914,400,000 

House allowance .............................................................................................................................................. 8,595,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................................................ 8,595,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Communities use Formula Grants funds for bus and railcar purchases, facility repair and construction, maintenance, and where eligible, planning and operating expenses. The Formula Grants account includes funding for the following programs: transit-oriented 

development; planning programs; urbanized area formula grants; 

enhanced mobility for seniors and individuals with disabilities; formula grants for rural areas; a bus testing facility; a national transit institute; the national transit database; state-of-good repairs 

grants; bus and bus facilities formulas grants; and growing States 

and high-density States formula grants. Set-asides from formula 

funds are directed to a grant program for each State with rail systems not regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration to meet 

the requirements for a State Safety Oversight program. The account also provides funding to support passenger ferry services and 

public transportation on Indian reservations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting obligations in the transit 

formula and bus grants account in fiscal year 2016 to 

$8,595,000,000. The recommendation is $5,319,400,000 less than 

the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

The recommendation is also consistent with the currently authorized level under MAP–21. 

The Committee recommends $9,500,000,000 in authority to liquidate contract authorizations. This amount is sufficient to cover 

outstanding obligations from this account. 
78 

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 

2015 

Fiscal year 2016 

Administration 

proposal 

Committee 

assumption 

Transit Oriented Development .................... 20005(b) ........ $10,000,000 $10,234,449 $10,000,000 

Planning Programs ..................................... 5305 .............. 128,800,000 131,819,705 128,800,000 

Urbanized Area Formula Grants ................. 5307 .............. 4,458,650,000 4,563,182,693 4,458,650,000 

Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities.5310 .............. 258,300,000 264,355,823 258,300,000 

Formula Grants for Rural Areas ................. 5311 .............. 607,800,000 622,049,823 607,800,000 

Bus Testing Facility .................................... 5318 .............. 3,000,000 3,070,335 3,000,000 

National Transit Institute ........................... 5322(d) .......... 5,000,000 5,117,225 5,000,000 

National Transit Database ......................... 5335 .............. 3,850,000 3,940,263 3,850,000 

State of Good Repair Grants ...................... 5337 .............. 2,165,900,000 5,719,000,000 2,165,900,000 

Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Grants ..... 5339 .............. 427,800,000 1,939,000,000 427,800,000 

Growing States and High Density States 

Formula Grants.

5340 .............. 525,900,000 538,229,684 525,900,000 

Administrative Expenses ............................. ........................ .............................. 114,400,000 ..............................

Total .............................................. ........................ 8,595,000,000 13,914,400,000 8,595,000,000 

Transit Formula Allocations.—The Committee continues to have 

significant concerns over the number of localities that are negatively impacted by changes to the funds distribution methodology 

as contained in MAP–21. Under the current formula, the funds for 

bus replacement, purchase, and rehabilitation are severely reduced 

from previous years. This reduction is disproportionately impacting 

medium and smaller sized transit agencies whose focus is on bus 

service, and in those regions and States with older bus fleets. According to the FTA, 41 States and territories received a lower average allocation under the new section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities 

(formula) Grant program in fiscal years 2013–2014 than they did 

under the prior Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities program during fiscal years 2010–2012. 

The Committee encourages the Department to work with the authorizing committees of jurisdiction when crafting the next surface 

bill to help these impacted communities with their bus replacement 

needs, without negatively impacting those States that now receive 

a higher allocation under the current formula program. In addition, 

in order to further assist communities with bus replacement and 

repair, the Department is urged to work with the authorizing committees of jurisdiction to establish a competitive Bus State of Good 

Repair program. 

TRANSIT RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $33,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 33,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 26,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 32,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation supports activities that are designed to develop solutions that improve public transportation. As the Federal 

agency responsible for transit, FTA assumes a leadership role in 
79 

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 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 $32,500,000 for the transit research 

account. The recommendation is $500,000 below the fiscal year 

2015 enacted level. The Administration’s budget request shifted 

these activities into a new Transit Research and Training program 

supported with mandatory resources paid out of the Mass Transit 

Account of a Transportation Trust Fund. Of the total, $30,000,000 

is for activities authorized under section 5312 of MAP–21. The 

Committee recommendation allocates the balance of funds, 

$2,500,000, to the Transit Cooperative Research Program authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5313. 

Improving Rural Transit Access.—The Committee recognizes the 

importance of ensuring safe, private transportation is made available for seniors and people who do not drive, especially in small 

and rural communities where distance and low population density 

make traditional mass transportation difficult. The efficiencies of 

information management can help to provide on-demand transportation services and bring together underutilized private transportation capacity through ride share, car share, volunteer transport, 

and private community transport. The Committee encourages FTA 

to consider innovative transportation networks that leverage community volunteerism and private resources in various forms to access underutilized private transportation capacity to promote inclusive community mobility and provide transportation for seniors and 

disadvantaged populations in small and rural communities. Further, the Committee supports the capacity of consumers to plan 

their travel safely, independently and reliably through a variety of 

techniques and tools. 
80 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $4,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 27,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,153,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

MAP–21 authorizes FTA to provide technical assistance to the 

public transportation industry and to develop standards for transit 

services, with an emphasis on improving access for all individuals 

and transportation equity. It also authorizes FTA to support public 

transportation workforce development, training, and recruitment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,153,000 for technical assistance 

and training. The recommendation is $1,347,000 below the fiscal 

year 2015 level. The Administration’s budget request shifted these 

activities into a new Transit Research and Training program supported with mandatory resources paid out of the Mass Transit Account of a Transportation Trust Fund. Of the total, $2,653,000 is 

for activities authorized under section 5314 of MAP–21. The Committee recommendation allocates the balance of funds, $500,000, to 

the Human Resources and Training activities authorized under 49 

United States Code 5322. The Committee is sympathetic to the Department’s proposal to fund a substantial workforce development 

program within FTA, but is not in the position to make such a commitment while discretionary spending remains constrained. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $2,120,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 3,250,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,921,395,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,585,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under the Capital Investment Grants [CIG] 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 or more and a total capital cost of $250,000,000 or 

more. By comparison, Small Starts are projects with a Federal 

share under this section of $75,000,000 or less and total capital 

cost of $250,000,000 or less. The most recent reauthorization, 

MAP–21, added a third category of eligible projects under this section: Core Capacity. These are projects that will expand capacity by 

at least 10 percent in existing fixed-guideway transit corridors that 

are already at or above capacity today, or are expected to be at or 

above capacity within 5 years. 
81 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,585,000,000 for capital investment grants, which is $535,000,000 below the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Administration requested $3,250,000,000 for capital investment grants funded by mandatory resources paid out of 

the Mass Transit Account of a Transportation Trust Fund. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes $1,250,000,000 to 

cover the cost of existing full funding grant agreements in fiscal 

year 2016. In addition, $210,000,000 is provided for new starts 

projects that the Administration has recommended for full funding 

grant agreements in its budget request. For such projects, FTA is 

directed to give funding priority to projects that require a Federal 

share of 40 percent or less. 

The Committee recommendation also includes $75,000,000 for 

core capacity projects, $30,000,000 for small starts projects, 

$5,000,000 for the pilot program of expedited project delivery as authorized under section 20008(b) of MAP–21 and clarified by section 

165 of the bill, and $15,000,000 for oversight activities. 

In addition, the Committee encourages the FTA to take into consideration a system’s state of good repair, as certified by the sponsor, prior to forwarding a full funding grant agreement or small 

starts grant agreement for CIG projects that expand a system’s 

footprint. 

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $25,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program is a new 

program established in MAP–21 to help States and public transit 

systems cover the costs of protecting, repairing, and replacing 

equipment and facilities that may suffer or have suffered serious 

damage as a result of an emergency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Due to funding constraints, the Committee is unable to include 

funding for the emergency relief program in fiscal year 2016. 

GRANTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT

AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $150,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 150,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 100,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 150,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides assistance to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA]. The Federal Rail Safety 

Improvements Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–432, title VI, section 

601) authorized DOT to make up to $150,000,000 available to 
82 

WMATA annually for capital and preventive maintenance for a 10- 

year period. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for grants 

to WMATA for capital and preventive maintenance expenses, including pressing safety-related investments. These grants are in 

addition to the funding local jurisdictions have committed to providing to WMATA. Despite this continued Federal support, the 

Committee will not accept the status quo at WMATA. 

Leadership.—For nearly 6 months, WMATA has been without a 

permanent Chief Executive Office and General Manager. In addition, WMATA’s search for this individual has been suspended for 

the last 3 months. The Committee compels the WMATA Board of 

Directors to begin a new search for its top executive immediately. 

Yellow Line Smoke Incident at L’Enfant Plaza Station.—The 

Committee remains deeply troubled by the Yellow Line smoke incident at L’Enfant Plaza Station on January 12, 2015 that killed 1 

passenger, critically injured 2 riders and injured over 80. This 

deadly incident revealed WMATA still lacks established safety protocols to protect its ridership. It also revealed the lack of coordination between WMATA and local first responders. The Committee 

directs WMATA to provide the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations a report each quarter detailing its progress completing each of the National Transportation Safety Board’s existing 

and forthcoming recommendations. This report also should include 

updates on the outstanding recommendations from the deadly Fort 

Totten accident 6 years ago and the deadly Dupont Circle Station 

accident involving a WMATA employee in 2006. The Committee is 

especially interested in the replacement of the 1000-series cars. 

The Committee commends the FTA’s Office of Safety and Oversight for initiating a safety management inspection of WMATA in 

March 2015. This audit examined WMATA’s safety culture including safety procedures and protocols. The Committee is very concerned about the audit’s troubling findings that indicate a lot more 

work must be done to improve safety at WMATA. Therefore, the 

bill requires the Secretary to approve grants provided under this 

heading to WMATA only after certifying that progress has been 

made to improve WMATA’s safety management system. 

Financial Management.—Last year, an FTA audit reported material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in WMATA’s internal 

financial controls. In response to these serious findings, FTA suspended WMATA’s ability to automatically draw down its Federal 

grants; until these weaknesses are corrected, FTA will review and 

approve each WMATA request for reimbursement. WMATA accepted all of the audit’s findings and recommendations and responded 

with a corrective action plan. The Committee is advised FTA has 

reviewed and closed 33 of 38 corrective actions. Another two are 

under review and the remaining three are due to FTA on June 30, 

2015. The bill requires the Secretary to approve grants provided 

under this heading to WMATA only after certifying that WMATA 

is making progress toward full implementation of the corrective actions identified in this audit. 
83 

The bill also directs the Secretary to provide these grants to 

WMATA only after receiving and reviewing a request for each specific project to be funded under this heading. The bill requires the 

Secretary to determine that WMATA has placed the highest priority on funding projects that will improve the safety of its public 

transit system before approving these grants, using the National 

Transportation Safety Board and Federal Transit Administration’s 

recommendations as a guide. 

Wireless Service Extension.—The Committee reluctantly provides 

another 1 year extension for the wireless service requirement in 

the authorization statute. The Committee is aware of the troubles 

WMATA has had meeting this requirement. However, it has been 

nearly 7 years. The deadly Yellow Line smoke incident sadly demonstrated the need for wireless service in the system’s tunnels. The 

Committee directs WMATA to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report each quarter detailing its 

progress installing wireless service. Without significant progress toward completing this work, the Committee will not be inclined to 

consider a subsequent extension for the completion of this large 

safety project. 

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, 2020, 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, 2015, 

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 arctic vessels as satisfying the requirements 

under 49 U.S.C. 5334 and 2 CFR 200.313. 

Section 165 Clarifies section 20008(b) of MAP–21. 

Section 166 Rescinds $10,000,000 in prior year unobligated bus 

and bus facilities funds. 

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC] 

is a wholly owned Government corporation established by the Saint 

Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 981). SLSDC is 

a vital transportation corridor for the international movement of 

bulk commodities such as steel, iron, grain, and coal, serving the 

North American region that makes up one-quarter of the United 

States population and nearly one-half of the Canadian population. 

The SLSDC is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of the United States portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. 
84 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $32,042,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 36,400,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 29,042,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,400,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] was established by 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99– 

662). Since 1987, the HMTF has supported the operations and 

maintenance of commercial harbor projects maintained by the Federal Government. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund and revenues from non-Federal sources finance the operation and maintenance of the Seaway, for which SLSDC is responsible. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $28,400,000 for the operations, 

maintenance, and asset renewal of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. 

This amount is $8,000,000 less than the budget request and 

$3,642,000 less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

The Committee recommendation includes funding to replace the 

agency’s tugboats but does not provide additional funding for the 

vessel vacuum mooring system. The Committee directs SLSDC to 

continue to submit an annual report to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, not later than April 30 of each year, summarizing the activities of the ARP during the immediate preceding 

fiscal year. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Administration [MARAD] is responsible for programs authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended 

(46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). MARAD is also responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support of the 

Nation’s security and economic needs. MARAD prioritizes the Department of Defense’s [DOD] use of ports and intermodal facilities 

during DOD mobilizations to guarantee the smooth flow of military 

cargo through commercial ports. MARAD manages the Maritime 

Security Program, the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement 

Program, and the Ready Reserve Force, which assure DOD access 

to commercial and strategic sealift and associated intermodal capacity. MARAD also continues to address the disposal of obsolete 

ships in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that are deemed a potential environmental risk. Further, MARAD administers education 

and training programs through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six State maritime schools that assist in providing skilled 

merchant marine officers who are capable of serving defense and 

commercial transportation needs. The Committee continues to fund 

MARAD in its support of the United States as a maritime Nation. 
85 

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $186,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 211,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 186,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 186,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Security Program [MSP] provides resources to 

maintain a U.S.-flag merchant fleet crewed by U.S. citizens to 

serve both the commercial and national security needs of the 

United States. The program provides direct payments to U.S.-flag 

ship operators engaged in U.S. foreign trade. Participating operators are required to keep the vessels in active commercial service 

and provide intermodal sealift support to DOD in times of war or 

national emergency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $186,000,000 for 

the MSP. This amount is $25,000,000 less than the budget request 

and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The recommended 

appropriation provides sufficient funds to satisfy the fully authorized payment level for fiscal year 2016. 

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $148,050,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 184,637,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 164,158,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 170,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Operations and Training appropriation primarily funds the 

salaries and expenses for MARAD headquarters and regional staff 

in the administration and direction for all MARAD programs. The 

account includes funding for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, 

six State maritime schools, port and intermodal development, cargo 

preference, international trade relations, deep-water port licensing 

and administrative support costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $170,000,000 for 

Operations and Training at MARAD for fiscal year 2016 to be distributed between agency operations, the United States Merchant 

Marine Academy, and State maritime academies as outlined in the 

chart below. This amount is $21,950,000 more than the fiscal year 

2015 enacted level and $14,637,000 less than the budget request. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

Fiscal year 2016 

Senate 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy ........................................................................................................................... $82,889,000 

Academy Operations .................................................................................................................................... 64,889,000 

Capital Improvements ................................................................................................................................. 15,000,000 

Facilities Maintenance, Repair and Equipment ......................................................................................... 3,000,000 

State Maritime Academies ................................................................................................................................... 33,400,000 
86 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION—Continued 

Fiscal year 2016 Senate 

SMA Direct Payments .................................................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

Student Incentive Payments ....................................................................................................................... 2,400,000 

Schoolship Maintenance and Repair .......................................................................................................... 22,000,000 

Fuel Assistance Payments .......................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

National Security Multi-Mission Vehicle Design ......................................................................................... 5,000,000 

MARAD Operations ............................................................................................................................................... 53,711,000 

Headquarter Operations .............................................................................................................................. 46,711,000 

Environment and Technology Grants .......................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Marine Highways Grants ............................................................................................................................. 5,000,000 

TOTAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 170,000,000 

Short Sea Shipping Program.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $5,000,000 for the Short Sea Shipping program, commonly 

known as the Marine Highway program. Projects funded by this 

grant program will help mitigate landside congestion, encourage 

shipper utilization, improve port and landside infrastructure, and 

develop marine transportation strategies by State and local governments. 

National Security Multi-Mission Vessel [NSMV].—The Committee supports MARAD’s efforts to develop a replacement vessel 

for the six State Maritime Academy training ships, including the 

53-year-old training ship Empire State. The Committee provides $5,000,000 for short-term planning activities, including study of requirements alternatives, cost-tradeoffs, cost analysis, schedule, acquisitions strategy, and vessel design; and long-term planning activities, including study of program delivery strategy and production timetables for the incremental replacement of the current 

academy training ships. The Committee directs MARAD to develop 

a detailed plan and schedule for vessel replacement, including a 

cost comparison and a cost-benefit analysis, and to provide a report 

on its recommendation for vessel replacement to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Committee also directs 

the agency to consult with the Navy, Coast Guard, and any other 

relevant agencies that may benefit from the NSMV prior to submitting any future budget request related to the design, construction, 

acquisition, or conversion of a replacement vessel. 

Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment at the United States Merchant Marine Academy.—The Committee remains concerned about 

the rate of incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment at 

the Academy. The most recent survey of sexual harassment and 

sexual assault from the 2013–2014 academic year shows a continuation of the disturbing results at the Academy seen in prior surveys. Despite 35 midshipmen reporting sexual assault on the survey, only 4 midshipmen reported their incidents to Academy leadership. 

It is imperative that senior leadership throughout the Department make improving conditions at the Academy a top priority. 

The Academy has made strides by hiring a new Sexual Assault Response Coordinator with relevant experience and knowledge to address these issues, but the change in culture must be addressed by 

the entire Academy. While 75 percent of midshipmen believe that 

senior leadership, staff, and faculty make an honest and reasonable 
87 

attempt to stop sexual harassment and sexual assault, female midshipmen did not think that the training provided by the Academy 

during the survey year was helping. The Committee recommendation includes funding for new staff focused on developing leadership 

and providing student life support to help address these issues. The 

Committee further directs the Secretary to provide the annual report required by section 3507 of Public Law 110–417 to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than January 

12, 2016. 

United States Merchant Marine Academy Board of Visitors.—The 

Committee directs MARAD to provide full support to the United 

States Merchant Marine Academy’s Board of Visitors [BOV], including by supporting the annual visit required in 46 U.S.C. 51312. 

MARAD should coordinate with the BOV, once appointed, to develop and implement a charter, support regular meetings and briefings, and address questions and concerns. The Committee urges 

MARAD to seek additional support from the Department of the 

Navy since the USMMA is a leading commissioning source for reserve naval officers. Midshipmen should be prepared to service the 

Nation throughout the transportation industry, including on our 

Great Lakes and our inland rivers and waterways. The Secretary 

is also encouraged to form research and training partnerships with 

University Transportation Centers focusing on maritime and multimodal transportation research. 

United States Merchant Marine Academy Capital Improvements 

Plan [CIP].—The Committee once again directs the Administrator 

to provide an annual report by March 31, 2016, 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-todate cost projections for each project; and any other deviations from 

the previous year’s CIP. 

Environment and Compliance.—The Committee commends 

MARAD’s initiative to support the domestic maritime industry’s efforts to comply with emerging international and domestic environmental regulatory requirements. The Committee directs MARAD to 

notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not 

less than 3 business days before grant, contract, or cooperative 

agreement is announced by the Department or MARAD for the 

maritime environment and technology assistance program as authorized by 46 U.S.C. 50307. 

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL SHIPYARDS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $5,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

As authorized under section 54101 of title 46, the Assistance to 

Small Shipyards program provides assistance in the form of grants, 
88 

loans, and loan guarantees to small shipyards for capital improvements and training programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for assistance to small shipyards. This level of funding is $5,000,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and the President’s request. 

Funding for this program is intended to help small shipyards improve the efficiency of their operations by providing funding for 

equipment and other facility upgrades. The funding recommended 

by the Committee will help improve the competitiveness of our Nation’s small shipyards, as well as workforce training and apprenticeships in communities dependent upon maritime transportation. 

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $4,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 8,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,000,000 for 

MARAD’s Ship Disposal program. This level of funding is equal to 

the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and $4,000,000 below the budget 

request. This level of funding, in addition to the anticipated carryover from previous appropriations and receipts from the sale of vessels, is sufficient to meet the terms and conditions of the Suisun 

Bay Reserve Fleet settlement and continued activities related to 

the NS Savannah. The total number of obsolete ships not yet 

under contract and awaiting disposal is down to 15. This is a historic low for the program. 

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM [TITLE XI]

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $3,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 3,135,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,135,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,135,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Guaranteed Loan program was established pursuant to title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended. 

The program provides for a full faith and credit guarantee by the 

U.S. Government of debt obligations issued by: (1) U.S. or foreign 

ship-owners for the purposes of financing or refinancing either 

U.S.-flag vessels or eligible export vessels constructed, reconstructed, or reconditioned in U.S. shipyards; and (2) U.S. shipyards, 
89 

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 $8,135,000 for the 

maritime guaranteed loan title XI program, of which $3,135,000 

shall be used for administrative expenses of the maritime loan 

guarantee program. This level of funding is $5,000,000 more than 

the President’s budget request and $5,035,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2015 enacted level. The loan guarantee amount of $5,000,000, 

in addition to unobligated balances currently available, is sufficient 

to meet the cost of all current pending applications before the Department. The Committee directs the agency to move quickly to approve all pending applications and continue to proactively monitor 

all guaranteed loans that may be at risk of default. The Committee 

recognizes the importance that the title XI program provides for 

the advancement of shipbuilding, aiding the U.S.-flag fleet, and 

sustainment of jobs for this critical sector of our national defense. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 170 authorizes the Maritime Administration to furnish 

utilities and to service and make repairs to any lease, contract, or 

occupancy involving Government property under the control of 

MARAD. Rental payments received pursuant to this provision shall 

be credited to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration 

[PHMSA] was established in the Department of Transportation on 

November 30, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research 

and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108–246). 

PHMSA is responsible for the Department’s pipeline safety program as well as oversight of hazardous materials transportation 

safety operations. The Administration is dedicated to safety, including the elimination of transportation-related deaths and injuries 

associated with hazardous materials and pipeline transportation, 

and to promoting transportation solutions that enhance communities and protect the environment. 

OPERATIONAL EXPENSES

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $22,225,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 22,500,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 21,225,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,500,000 
90 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds program support costs for PHMSA, including 

policy development, civil rights, management, administration, and 

agency-wide expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $22,500,000 for this account, of 

which $1,500,000 may be transferred to the Office of Pipeline Safety for Information Grants to Communities. The Committee’s recommendation is equal to the budget request and $275,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $52,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 64,254,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 60,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 49,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

PHMSA oversees the safety of more than 6.1 million tons of hazardous materials shipments daily in the United States, using risk 

management principles and security threat assessments to fully assess and reduce the risks inherent in hazardous materials transportation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $49,000,000 for 

hazardous materials safety, of which $2,300,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2018. The amount provided is $15,254,000 

less than the administration’s budget request and $3,000,000 less 

than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Committee’s recommendation does not provide additional funding for the Risk 

Management Framework and does not provide any new full-time 

equivalent [FTE], but fully funds the additional safety and inspection enforcement staff provided in the previous fiscal year. The recommendation does not continue the one-time increase of $4,700,000 

provided in the previous fiscal year for research and development 

activities and directs the agency to prioritize these funds for research activities on the safe transportation of energy products, including crude oil, ethanol, and liquefied natural gas, and to coordinate its efforts with FRA to avoid any overlap of responsibility and 

duplication of projects. 

Crude Oil Shipment Across Various Modes of Transportation.— 

In light of the drastic increase in the transportation of crude by rail 

from 9,500 carloads in 2008 to 650,000 carloads in 2014, and the 

recent catastrophic oil train derailments, including the disaster in 

Quebec, Canada in 2013 that claimed the lives of 47 people, the derailment of a train carrying 3 million gallons of crude oil in West 

Virginia, in February, and the March oil train derailment in Galena, Illinois, that narrowly avoided the Mississippi River, the 

Committee directs the Secretary to analyze the comparative safety 

of shipping oil by rail, pipeline, or truck and report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of enact-
91 

ment of this act. The report should include the total volume of oil 

spilled and the total volume of oil shipped by each mode of transportation over each of the past 10 years as well as future estimates 

of oil shipment volumes by each mode of transportation based on 

recent trends and current policy, including the Department’s tank 

car rulemaking. The report should indicate to Congress the safest 

mode of transportation for the shipment of oil as well as necessary 

measures to improve the safety of each form of transportation. 

Crude Oil Volatility.—The rapid growth of light sweet crude oil 

from the Bakken shale in North Dakota being transported by rail 

has led to safety concerns about the movement of untreated products across the country. A recent literature survey from the Department of Energy’s Sandia National Laboratories, conducted with cooperation from DOT, confirmed the complexity of determining the 

combustibility of the crude oil and the need for additional research 

to better predict the severity of any potential rail incident. The 

Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation to coordinate 

with the Secretary of Energy and any States where crude transported by rail originates to complete the second phase of the Department of Energy’s study on oil volatility. 

Comprehensive Oil Spill Response Plans.—An oil spill response 

plan is intended to help the carrier identify and deploy a response 

organization to contain and remediate an oil release. The plans require carriers to identify a qualified individual with full authority 

to implement removal actions; ensure by contract or other means 

the availability of private personnel and equipment to remove a 

worst case discharge; and describe training, equipment testing, 

drills and exercises. PHMSA issued an advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking on expanding the applicability of comprehensive oil 

spill response plans to rail carriers in July 2014. The Committee 

notes with disappointment that to date, despite additional resources provided by the Committee and direction in Senate Report 

113–182, PHMSA has not initiated a rulemaking. The Committee 

directs PHMSA to initiate a rulemaking to expand the applicability 

of comprehensive oil spill response plans to rail carriers within 90 

days of enactment of this act and to issue a final rule no later than 

1 year after enactment of this act. 

User Fee Proposal.—In recent budget proposals, PHMSA has proposed the creation of a user fee to reduce the burden on the Federal taxpayer for financing special permit and approvals activities. 

The Committee believes that any such fee should be established 

through the authorization process. 

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $146,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 175,104,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 145,870,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 146,623,000 
92 

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 $146,623,000 for the 

Office of Pipeline Safety. The amount is $623,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2015 enacted level and $28,481,000 less than the budget 

request. Of the funding provided, $19,500,000 shall be derived from 

the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and $127,123,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund. 

The Committee’s recommended level of funding, in addition to 

unused funding in the current fiscal year, fully funds the additional 

staff previously provided for the Pipeline Safety Reform initiative. 

The Committee’s recommendation provides no additional funding 

for National Pipeline Information Exchange. The Committee provided a substantial increase for State Pipeline Safety Grants 

[SPSG] in fiscal year 2015 and is concerned about the ability of 

States to provide the 20 percent match required to access these 

funds. The Committee directs PHMSA to include in future budget 

justifications an analysis of the ability of States to obligate the 

funding for SPSG within the 3-year period of availability of these 

funds. Of the funds recommended for research and development up 

to $2,000,000 shall be used for the Pipeline Safety Research Competitive Academic Agreement Program [CAAP] to focus on nearterm solutions, such as advanced sensor technologies and coating 

technologies, to improve the safety and reliability of the Nation’s 

pipeline transportation system. 

Pipeline Safety User Fee Allocation.—The pipeline safety program 

is largely funded through user fees on natural gas transmission 

pipelines, jurisdictional hazardous liquid pipelines, and liquefied 

natural gas terminal operators. Recent authorizations have increased the responsibilities for PHMSA and the States with respect 

to the safety of our Nation’s pipelines. Given this change in scope 

of the pipeline safety program, the Committee directs PHMSA to 

review the user fee collection process to determine if it should be 

modified to more equitably allocate the cost of the pipeline safety 

program across the industry segments covered by Federal and 

State oversight. PHMSA shall submit a report to both the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment of this act, that summarizes the agency’s statutory authority 

to revise the fee structure, its assessment of the current fee structure, and any recommendations for changes to the fee structure 
93 

that should be considered by Congress it considers reauthorization 

of PHMSA. 

Pipeline Safety at River Crossings.—The Committee recognizes 

the importance of protecting the integrity of pipelines at river 

crossings. River crossings present unique challenges to preserving 

pipeline infrastructure buried under a river bed. Fast-moving 

water and erosion can change the characteristics of rivers rapidly, 

exposing these pipelines and making them more susceptible to rupture. The Committee recognizes that PHMSA has recently studied 

this issue. Given the importance of safeguarding our waterways, 

the Committee directs the Department to report on how real-time 

monitoring during flood events and pertinent data from other agencies such as the United States Geological Survey is being used to 

address challenges associated with the dynamic and unique nature 

of rivers and flood plains. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $28,318,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 28,318,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 28,318,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,318,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 

1990 [HMTUSA] requires PHMSA to (1) develop and implement a 

reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 

public sector emergency response training and planning, and provide technical assistance to States, political subdivisions, and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and periodically update a mandatory 

training curriculum for emergency responders. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $28,318,000 and an equal obligation 

limitation for the emergency preparedness grant program. The recommendation continues to provide PHMSA the authority to use 

prior year carryover and recaptures for the development of a Webbased hazardous materials response training curriculum for emergency responders, including response activities for crude oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids by rail. The training curriculum 

shall be developed in coordination with the FRA and be consistent 

with National Fire Protection Association standards. The Committee encourages PHMSA to complete its work and make the 

Web-based curriculum available to local emergency responders as 

expeditiously as possible. Prior years’ carry over may also be used 

to train public sector emergency response personnel in communities 

on or near rail lines that transport a significant volume of high-risk 

energy commodities or toxic inhalation hazards. The Committee 

continues a provision increasing the administrative costs available 

from 2 percent to 4 percent and directs the agency to address the 

OIG’s recommendations. 
94 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Section 180 raises concerns about PHMSA’s regulation of the 

siting of small-scale liquefaction facilities that generate and package liquefied natural gas [LNG] for use as a fuel or delivery to consumers by non-pipeline modes of transportation. These facilities 

are regulated by title 49 Code of Federal Regulations part 193, 

which was developed to address safety standards for LNG facilities 

used in the transportation of gas by pipeline and subject to pipeline 

safety laws. The Committee believes these regulations are outdated, excessively challenging, and do not take into account the reduction in scale of these smaller facilities that provide fuel to vehicles, vessels, or other end users. To address these concerns, 

PHMSA is directed to evaluate and report an alternative risk-based 

compliance regime for siting small-scale liquefaction facilities and 

consider the value of quantitative risk assessment methods, the 

benefits of incorporating modern industry standards and best practices, and the need to encourage the use of best available technology to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

within 60 days of enactment of this act. Until that regime is established, PHMSA is encouraged as an interim measure to give expedited consideration to any request for a special permit that seeks 

to use an alternative risk-based approach for siting a small-scale 

liquefaction facility. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $86,223,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 87,472,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 86,223,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 87,472,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective organization, with a mission to: 

—conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the 

programs and operations of the Department; 

—provide leadership and recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations; 

—prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and 

—keep the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding 

problems and deficiencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $87,472,000 for activities of the Office of the Inspector General, which is equal to the 

President’s budget request and $1,249,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2015 enacted level. 

Audit Reports.—The Committee requests that the Inspector General continue to forward copies of all audit reports to the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to continue to make 
95 

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. 

Unfair Business Practices.—The bill maintains language which 

authorizes the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or 

deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers and ticket agents. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation 

Crediting 

offsetting 

collections 

Appropriations, 2015 .......................................................................................................... $31,375,000 $1,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................................................... 32,499,000 1,250,000 

House allowance ................................................................................................................. 31,375,000 1,250,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 32,375,000 1,250,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Surface Transportation Board [STB] was created on January 

1, 1996, by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act 

of 1995 [ICCTA] (Public Law 104–88). The Board is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT, and is responsible for the regulation 

of the rail and pipeline industries and certain nonlicensing regulations 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 $32,375,000. 

This funding level is $124,000 below the budget request and 

$1,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 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 make long overdue improvements to the agency’s information technology system. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Section 190 allows funds for maintenance and operation of aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, 

as authorized by law. 

Section 191 limits appropriations for services authorized by 5 

U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an executive level IV. 
96 

Section 192 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and expenses 

of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation. 

Section 193 prohibits recipients of funds made available in the 

act from releasing personal information, including Social Security 

numbers, medical and disability information, and photographs, 

from a driver’s license or motor vehicle record without the express 

consent of the person to whom such information pertains; and prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from withholding funds provided in this act from any grantee in noncompliance with this provision. 

Section 194 allows funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration from States, counties, municipalities, other 

public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for 

training may be credited to each agency’s respective accounts. 

Section 195 prohibits the use of funds in this act to make a grant 

or announce the intention to make a grant unless the Secretary of 

Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations at least 3 full business days before making the grant 

or the announcement. 

Section 196 allows rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor 

fees, and other funds received by the Department of Transportation 

from travel management center, charge card programs, subleasing 

of building space and miscellaneous sources to be credited to appropriations of the Department of Transportation. 

Section 197 requires amounts from improper payments to a 

third-party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the Department of Transportation to be available to cover expenses incurred 

in recovery of such payments. 

Section 198 establishes requirements for reprogramming actions 

by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 199 prohibits the Surface Transportation Board from 

charging filing fees for rate or practice complaints that are greater 

than the fees authorized for district court civil suits. 

Section 199A prohibits funds appropriated in this act to the 

modal administrations from being obligated for the Office of the 

Secretary for costs related to assessments or reimbursable agreements unless the obligations are for services that provide a direct 

benefit to the applicable modal administration. 

Section 199B authorizes the Secretary to carry out a program 

that establishes uniform standards for developing and supporting 

agency transit pass and transit benefits authorized under section 

7905 of title 5, United States Code. 

Section 199C prohibits the use of funds for any geographic, economic, or other hiring preference pilot program, regulation, or policy unless certain requirements are met related to availability of 

local labor, displacement of existing employees, and delays in 

transportation plans. 
(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 that protect homebuyers, and fosters 

programs and research that stimulate and guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but better communities and living 

environments. 

As HUD works to fulfill its mission, the Committee urges the 

Secretary to enhance efforts to provide decent, affordable housing 

and to promote economic development for rural Americans. When 

designing programs and making funding decisions, the Secretary 

shall take into consideration the unique conditions, challenges, and 

scale of rural areas. 

The Committee notes that poverty is far too prevalent in the 

United States. HUD should continue to work with Congress and 

other partners to implement policies that reduce the existence of 

poverty and the suffering associated with it. The Committee also 

encourages HUD to increase interagency collaboration to ensure 

Federal resources are strategically deployed in order to achieve the 

most effective outcomes, while also reducing overlap and duplication. 

Relationship Between HUD and the Committee on Appropriations.—The primary relationship between the Committee and HUD 

exists via the Departmental budget office. This relationship is an 

absolute necessity in structuring the annual appropriations act. It 

facilitates an effective sharing of a wide range of budgetary and 

cost information. The Committee retains the right to call upon all 

offices and agencies within the Department, but the primary connection between the two entities exists through the budget office. 

The Committee cautions HUD that section 405 of the Appropria-
98 

tions Act governs the creation of new offices and policies. Additionally, the Committee expects that all offices within HUD will work 

with the budget office to provide timely and accurate information 

to the Committee. 

Appropriations Attorneys.—During consideration of the fiscal 

year 2003 appropriations legislation, it became apparent to the 

Committee that both the Committee and the Department would be 

better served if the attorneys responsible for appropriations matters were housed in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

[OCFO]. The fiscal year 2003 act provided funds and FTE to the 

OCFO to accommodate four attorneys transferred from the Office 

of General Counsel [OGC]. Since that time, the Committee has routinely received prompt, accurate, and reliable information from the 

OCFO on various appropriations law matters. For fiscal year 2016, 

the Committee continues to fund appropriations attorneys in the 

OCFO and directs HUD to refer all appropriations law issues to 

such attorneys within the OCFO. The Committee directs the Department to inform the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 5 days of enactment of this act that this directive 

has been implemented. 

Reprogramming and Congressional Notification.—The Committee 

reiterates that the Department must secure the approval of the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for the reprogramming of funds between programs, projects, and activities 

within each account. 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 under section 405. 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 in the operating plan required by section 405 of 

this act. Finally, the Committee shall 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. 

Grant Awards and Congressional Notification.—HUD is reminded that appropriated funds are critical investments that support communities across the Nation. HUD’s grant programs give 

State and local governments, public housing authorities, non-profit 

organizations, tribal entities, and other key housing development 

and service providers the resources to build and preserve quality 

affordable housing, spur local economies, and make communities 

more stable. The Committee is concerned that the Department continues to use archaic systems and processes for grant notifications, 

causing delays, inefficiencies, and administrative burdens on staff. 
99 

Therefore, the Committee urges HUD to consult with the Department of Transportation and other Federal agencies on their Congressional notification process. HUD shall report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment 

of this act on how the Department intends to move toward a central database and distribution for all Congressional notifications. 

Congressionally Mandated Reports.—The Department is reminded that directives and reports mandated in the House and 

Senate Appropriations acts and accompanying reports are not optional unless revised or eliminated by the Statement of Managers 

accompanying the act. The Committee believes that such reports 

provide a better understanding of various issues and the Committee uses such reports to help inform funding decisions. Therefore, the Department is advised that the submission of directed reports is mandatory and not at the discretion of the Department. 

The Committee directs the Department to submit all overdue reports and to advise the Committee if it will be unable to meet a 

reporting requirement well in advance of the deadline. 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

EXECUTIVE OFFICES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $14,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 14,646,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 14,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Executive Offices account provides the salaries and expenses 

funding to support the Department’s senior leadership and other 

key functions, including the immediate offices of the Secretary, 

Deputy Secretary, Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, 

Public Affairs, Adjudicatory Services, the Center for Faith-Based 

and Community Initiatives, and the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,500,000 for 

this account, which is equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level 

and $146,000 less than the budget request. The funding level provided includes no more than $51,000 for the combined travel costs 

of the offices of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

and Public Affairs. The Secretary is directed to submit a spending 

plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that 

outlines how budgetary resources will be distributed among the 

seven offices funded under this heading. 

Telework and Alternative Work Schedules.—As the Department 

increases its use of telework and alternative work schedules, it is 

important to recognize that these flexibilities present unique challenges as employees work to maintain office productivity and ensure that members of the Department, the public, and other stakeholders are able to consistently reach HUD staff. The Committee 

recognizes that these work place flexibilities can be beneficial to 

both the employee and the Department. However, HUD is relying 
100 

on individual managers and employees or program offices across 

headquarters, field and regional offices to develop strategies to effectively manage staff. While this may work in individual circumstances, it creates a patchwork of inconsistent and unreliable 

policies that impact employee productivity and customer service. 

The Committee is concerned that such policies encourage the misuse of telecommunications and intercommunications within the Department, impeding employee’s ability to provide necessary customer service. The Committee believes the best approach is clear 

and consistent telework and alternative work schedule policies and 

guidance from Departmental leadership. In developing such guidance, the Committee strongly encourages the Department to consult the Office of Personnel Management on effective telework and 

alternative work schedule arrangements that establish consistent 

and effective communication requirements among teleworkers, 

managers, coworkers, the general public, and other stakeholders. 

The Committee directs HUD to report to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations within 120 days of enactment of this 

act on how the newly established guidance will enable Department 

managers to effectively manage their telework and alternative 

work staff so that no critical duties go unmet. This report should 

also include an identification of any barriers, including statutory or 

regulatory barriers, to improved performance and customer service 

under telework and alternative work schedules. 

Cross-Cutting Regulations.—The Committee is concerned that recent regulatory actions by the Department that have a cross-cutting impact on grantees, including recent efforts related to section 

3, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, and sustainability, have 

been done without a full recognition or assessment of the burden 

these efforts may place on grantees. The Committee is concerned 

that this results in one office within the Department creating new 

requirements that impact another office, or offices, of the Department without the full and equal participation of the affected programs and stakeholders. To avoid these unintended consequences, 

the Committee directs the Secretary to establish a working group 

to review the Department’s current processes for designing, proposing, and implementing regulations that have impacts across 

multiple program areas and offices. The working group shall be led 

by a representative of the Office of the Secretary or Deputy Secretary. The Department is directed to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 days of enactment of 

this act on the working group membership, the Department’s current processes for designing, proposing (including a review of public 

comments), and implementing crosscutting regulations; ways the 

current process can be improved, mitigation strategies to be utilized to minimize grantee burden, and a timeline for implementing 

these improvements. 

Circumvention of the Nomination Process.—The Committee is 

deeply troubled by the Administration’s willful circumvention of 

the Appointments Clause of the Constitution which in Article II, 

section 2, clause 2 states, ‘‘and he shall nominate, and by and with 

the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, 

other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, 

and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments 
101 

are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.’’ Specifically, the Committee notes the appointments 

earlier this year of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretaries for 

the Offices of Community Planning and Development, Housing, 

and Public and Indian Housing. 

While this position has existed at other Federal agencies, it is 

new to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 

comes at a time when the Assistant Secretary position in these offices has been vacant for an extended period of time. The position 

of Assistant Secretary of Housing/Federal Housing Administration 

Commissioner has been vacant since October 24, 2014; the position 

of Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing has been vacant since June 30, 2014; the position of Assistant Secretary for 

Community Planning and Development has been vacant the longest, since May 18, 2012. The Committee is incredulous that the Administration has elected to maintain the vacancy of these three 

mission critical positions. The Committee also takes umbrage with 

the Administration’s decision to redirect a nominee, whose nomination was presented at the end of the 113th Congress, to a Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary position in lieu of re-nominating the individual at the beginning of the 114th Congress. 

The Committee strongly encourages HUD and the Administration to rethink the appointment of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretaries in the offices of Public and Indian Housing, Community 

Planning and Development, and Housing in the absence of incumbent Assistant Secretaries or putting forth nominations for those 

positions. While the Committee does not expressly forbid this practice, the Committee has reduced amounts included in the Committee’s recommendation by amounts equal to the salary and benefits 

of a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for offices where the position of Assistant Secretary is not filled or for which a nomination 

for that position is not currently pending before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs or has been reported by that Committee to the Senate. 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT OFFICES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $518,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 577,861,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 547,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 568,244,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administrative Support Offices [ASO] account is the backbone of HUD’s operations, and consists of several offices that aim 

to work seamlessly to provide the leadership and support services 

to ensure the Department performs its core mission and is compliant with all legal, operational, and financial guidelines. This account funds the salaries and expenses of the Office of the General 

Counsel, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the 

Chief Procurement Officer, the Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity, the Office of Field Policy and Management, 

the Office of Strategic Planning and Management, the Office of the 

Chief Human Capital Officer, the Office of Administration, and the 

Office of the Chief Information Officer. 
102 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $568,244,000 for 

this account, which is $50,144,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 

enacted level and $9,617,000 less than the budget request. 

The President’s fiscal year 2016 budget proposes one amount of 

funding for all offices under the heading of administrative support 

offices, eliminating budget line items for each office. The Committee created the existing funding structure to increase the transparency of HUD’s personnel funding. Over the years, the Committee has modified the structure to make it more effective and responsive to the Department’s operations. The Committee rejects 

the Department’s proposal to fund one amount for ASO accounts. 

The Committee continues to work with HUD to respond to reprogramming requests necessary to address funding challenges 

that have arisen during the fiscal year and expects HUD to manage its resources as provided. The Committee notes that reprogramming requests submitted at the end of the fiscal year are 

the result of HUD’s resource management, not of the account structure. The Committee directs HUD’s Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer and the Office of the Human Capital Officer to submit quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on hiring and separations by program office. This report shall 

include position titles, location, associated FTE, and include the Office of the Inspector General and Government National Mortgage 

Association. 

Funds are made available as follows: 

Amount 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer ......................................................................................................... $61,475,000 

Office of Administration ....................................................................................................................................... 208,604,000 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ................................................................................................................... 44,657,000 

Office of the Chief Procurement Officer .............................................................................................................. 17,036,000 

Office of Field Policy and Management .............................................................................................................. 50,000,000 

Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity ..................................................................................... 3,270,000 

Office of the General Counsel ............................................................................................................................. 96,000,000 

Office of Strategic Planning and Management ................................................................................................... 4,400,000 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................................................................................... 82,802,000 

Office of the Chief Information Officer.—The Committee recommendation includes $82,802,000 for this office, which is 

$36,802,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. This increase is associated with the transfer of personnel and non-personnel resources related to New Core. 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer.—The Committee remains focused on the staffing levels in the Office of Budget, and directs 

HUD to move expeditiously to address the office’s staffing needs. 

To that end, the Committee directs the Department to prioritize 

the hiring of at least four FTP in the Office of Budget (three within 

the Program Budget Development Division, one FTP per branch, 

and one FTP within the Appropriations Liaison Division) before 

hiring in other OCFO functional areas, except in order to address 

mission critical positions that become vacant during fiscal year 

2016. 
103 

The Committee directs HUD to submit a 2016 hiring plan for 

OCFO to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

within 30 days of enactment of this Act. 

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. 

HUD shall not alter the organizational structure of OCFO as in 

effect on January 1, 2015, without prior written approval of the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

New Core and Shared Services.—Following the implementation 

challenges with HUD’s previously proposed financial modernization 

effort, Integrated Financial Management Improvement Project 

[HIFMIP], HUD has undertaken a new initiative, New Core. This 

multi-year modernization initiative established a shared service 

agreement between HUD and the Bureau of Fiscal Service’s Administrative Resource Center to support HUD’s financial management processes and associated systems. Due to the critical need of 

modernizing HUD’s financial management processes and developing an integrated system, the Committee is closely monitoring 

the management of this initiative. The Committee is deeply troubled by preliminary assessments of New Core, and is concerned 

that the Department’s investments are occurring with no strategic 

connection to the larger IT modernization efforts throughout the 

Department. The Committee is also concerned that the savings expected from decommissioning legacy systems in 2015 will not be realized and that there are no real savings to the system operations 

and maintenance costs associated with this transition. The Committee is further dismayed that the efforts to migrate to a shared 

service provider in 2015 will not directly address any of the material weaknesses identified in the 2014 Office of the Inspector General’s Annual Auditor’s Report. 

Providing a robust and accurate financial management system is 

the fundamental goal of New Core, yet it appears the current approach will result in HUD and the taxpayer paying more for a financial system that provides less functionality than the current 

HUDCAPS system and doing so with a greater risk of Anti-Deficiency Act violations. 

The Committee reminds the Department that while modernized 

systems to support stronger financial management and accounting 

structure are critical to the financial health of HUD, it is equally 

important to consider the human capital aspects of such transition. 

The Committee is concerned that HUD’s reliance on the expertise 

of external human capital will result in limited success in IT modernization and a failure to develop and institutionalize internal 

change management capacity. 

While the Committee does not believe it is in the best interest 

to eliminate funding for New Core, it is clear that the migration 

efforts cannot continue as currently structured. The Committee is 

shifting all personnel and non-personnel funding for New Core out 

of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and into the Office of 

the Chief Information Officer. The Committee expects that New 

Core will be implemented at the direction of the Chief Information 
104 

Officer in collaboration with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. The Committee directs HUD to provide the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations with updates at least quarterly on 

New Core. To this end, the update should include, information regarding estimated and actual lifecycle costs, functionalities deployed and the associated number of requirements remaining to be 

implemented, a list of risks and issues with associated mitigation 

strategies and anticipated closure dates, the status of organization 

change management activities, a list of the activities planned and 

completed business process reengineering efforts, and the total 

number of HUD employees impacted by role, location, and organization. The Committee also urges HUD to utilize the expertise of 

GAO and to continue to consult with the Office of the Inspector 

General [OIG] as New Core moves forward. 

PROGRAM OFFICES SALARIES AND EXPENSES

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $203,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 210,002,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 203,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 207,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 46 field offices in the Office of Public 

and Indian Housing [PIH]. PIH is charged with ensuring the availability of safe, decent, and affordable housing, creating opportunities for residents’ self-sufficiency and economic independence, and 

assuring the fiscal integrity of all public housing agencies. The Office ensures that safe, decent and affordable housing is available to 

Native American families, creates economic opportunities for tribes 

and Indian housing residents, assists tribes in the formulation of 

plans and strategies for community development, and assures fiscal 

integrity in the operation of its programs. The Office also administers programs authorized in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 [NAHASDA], which provides housing assistance to Native Americans and Native Hawaiians. PIH also manages the Housing Choice Voucher program, in 

which tenant-based vouchers increase affordable housing choices 

for low-income families. Tenant-based vouchers enable families to 

lease safe, decent, and affordable privately owned rental housing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $207,000,000 for 

this account, which is $3,002,000 less than the budget request and 

$4,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Committee recommendation supports existing personnel, and will allow 

the agency to make critical hires. The Committee directs HUD to 

continue to focus these resources on strengthening its oversight 

functions, including oversight of troubled and near troubled agencies. Of the amounts provided, not less than $100,000 is for travel 

related to the provision of training, technical assistance, oversight 

and management of Indian housing. 
105 

The Committee also urges HUD to look for ways to better integrate offices within PIH. The Committee notes that various offices 

within PIH share responsibility of overseeing public housing agencies and the programs that they run. It is imperative that the different offices within PIH improve coordination that will result in 

a reduction of duplicative or conflicting information requests of 

PHAs, clearer, concise and streamlined guidance to PHAs, administrative efficiencies, and policies that align across programs. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to evaluate the current 

PIH organizational structure and determine if the current structure is the most effective approach for program delivery, especially 

for the public housing programs. HUD shall report on its findings 

and recommendations to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 days of enactment of this act. 

The Committee directs HUD to prioritize the hiring of staff to fill 

critical positions in the following areas: field office staff for the 

management and oversight of Moving-to-Work PHAs; financial analysts for the Housing Choice Voucher program; additional staff for 

the Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives to create 

efficiencies in program operations; and field office staff for the 

management and oversight of grants to Indian tribes. 

The Committee directs HUD to submit a 2016 hiring plan for 

PIH to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 

30 days of enactment of this act. 

Housing Quality Standards.—HUD’s housing quality standards 

should effectively protect the health and safety of public housing 

and Housing Choice Voucher [HCV] residents. While the Department has made changes to public housing inspection standards to 

better capture the physical needs of an aging housing stock, the 

Committee is concerned that standards for the HCV program remain outdated and do not reflect recent research on health and 

safety threats in the home. The Committee directs the Department 

to evaluate the current HCV housing quality standards and report 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 

days of enactment of this act on a plan for updating the standards 

and a schedule to implement a single inspection protocol for public 

housing and voucher units in fiscal year 2016. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $102,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 112,115,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 102,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 107,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding for Community 

Planning and Development [CPD] staff in headquarters and in 43 

field offices. CPD’s mission is to support successful urban, suburban and rural communities by promoting integrated approaches to 

community and economic development. CPD programs also assist 

in the expansion of opportunities for low- and moderate-income individuals and families in moving towards home ownership. The Assistant Secretary for CPD administers formula and competitive 

grant programs, as well as guaranteed loan programs, that help 
106 

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 $5,115,000 less than the 

budget request and $5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The recommended level of funding will support additional FTE focused on grant oversight and monitoring to help address backlog of grants and audit findings. 

The Committee directs HUD to prioritize the hiring of staff to 

support the closeout of open audits and backlog of open grants, particularly as it relates to disaster recovery grants, before hiring in 

other areas, unless such staff are identified as backfilling missioncritical positions. 

The Committee directs HUD to submit a 2016 hiring plan for 

CPD to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this act. 

HOUSING

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $379,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 397,174,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 372,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 382,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 52 field locations in the Office of Housing. The Office of Housing is responsible for implementing programs to assist projects for occupancy by very low- and moderateincome households, to provide capital grants to nonprofit sponsors 

for the development of housing for the elderly and disabled, 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 $382,000,000 for 

staffing in the Office of Housing, which is $15,174,000 less than the 

budget request and $3,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Committee’s recommendation does not include a 

specific funding level for the Office of Risk and Regulatory Affairs 

because the Committee believes that this office is now well estab-
107 

lished and staffed within the overall funding provided to the Office 

of Housing. 

Multifamily Transformation.—At the end of 2013, HUD and the 

Committee came to an agreement to reorganize the Office of Multifamily Housing to streamline operations, improve program delivery, and save taxpayer funding. The Committee would like to remind HUD that they must adhere to the Appropriations Committee’s fiscal year 2015 agreement that HUD Asset Management 

functions and associated staff remain in existing field offices. The 

Committee further instructs that HUD, to the extent possible, 

prioritizes retaining talent at the local level to ensure high quality 

service. In doing so, the Committee strongly encourages the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide Office of 

Multifamily Housing employees impacted by the Multifamily Housing Transformation with flexible work schedule options and 

telework options. This flexibility is critical for employees to maintain consistent representation in non-urban housing markets 

throughout implementation of the Multifamily Housing Transformation and after the Multifamily Housing Transformation has 

been completed. The Department, in conjunction with the Office of 

Inspector General, is directed to report to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations 90 days after enactment of this act 

on their use and oversight of, and compliance with, existing Federal regulations on allowable relocation expenses. This report 

should identify costs associated with mandatory and discretionary 

relocation requirements. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $22,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 23,907,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 22,700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 23,100,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 16 field locations in the Office of Policy Development and Research [PD&R]. PD&R supports the Department’s efforts to help create cohesive, economically healthy 

communities. PD&R is responsible for maintaining current information on housing needs, market conditions, and existing programs, as well as conducting research on priority housing and community development issues. The office provides reliable and objective data and analysis to help inform policy decisions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,100,000 for 

this account, which is $807,000 less than the budget request and 

$400,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

PD&R collects and distributes data on HUD programs, the people HUD serves, and housing needs across the country, in addition 

to providing technical assistance in these areas. The information it 

makes available and the analysis it provides to the Department are 

essential to moving HUD to outcomes based performance measures. 

The Committee also relies on the data and research provided by 
108 

PD&R to inform its work. The recommended amount will ensure 

that PD&R can continue to play this important role. 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $68,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 81,132,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 73,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 69,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in all regional offices in the Office of Fair 

Housing and Equal Opportunity [FHEO]. FHEO is responsible for 

investigating, resolving, and prosecuting complaints of housing discrimination, as well as conducting education and outreach activities to increase awareness of the requirements of the Fair Housing 

Act. The Office also develops and interprets fair housing policy, 

processes complaints, performs compliance reviews, and provides 

oversight and technical assistance to local housing authorities and 

community development agencies regarding section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $69,500,000, 

which is $11,632,000 less than the budget request and $1,500,000 

more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL AND HEALTHY HOMES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $6,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 7,812,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 6,700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,800,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support the 

Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes [OLHCHH] 

headquarters staff. OLHCHH administers and manages the leadbased paint and healthy homes activities of the Department, and 

is directly responsible for the administration of the Lead-Based 

Paint Hazard Reduction program. The office also develops leadbased paint regulations, guidelines, and policies applicable to HUD 

programs, designs lead-based paint and healthy homes training 

programs, administers lead-hazard control and healthy homes 

grant programs, and implements the lead and healthy homes research program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,800,000 for 

this account, which is $1,012,000 less than the budget request and 

$100,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 
109 

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $19,304,160,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 21,123,496,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 19,918,643,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 19,934,643,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the section 8 tenant-based 

(voucher) program. Section 8 tenant-based housing assistance is 

one of the principle appropriations for Federal housing assistance, 

serving approximately 2.2 million families. The program also funds 

incremental vouchers for tenants who live in properties where the 

owner has decided to leave the section 8 program. The program 

also provides for the replacement of units lost from the assisted 

housing inventory through its tenant protection vouchers. Under 

these programs, eligible low-income individuals and 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 $19,934,643,000 

for fiscal year 2016, including $4,000,000,000 as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1, 2016. This amount is 

$1,188,853,000 less than the budget request and $630,483,000 

more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

The Committee recommends $17,982,000,000 for the renewal 

costs of section 8 vouchers, which is $351,816,000 less than the 

budget request and $496,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 

enacted level. 

The section 8 rental assistance program is a critical tool that enables more than 2 million low-income individuals and families to 

access safe, stable and affordable housing in the private market. In 

recognition of the section 8 program’s central role in ensuring housing for vulnerable Americans, the Committee recommendation includes sufficient resources to ensure that no current voucher holders are put at risk of losing their housing. The recommended funding level reflects updated actual leasing and cost data that reduces 

voucher costs from the original budget request. It also supports the 

first time renewal of incremental vouchers that were funded in 

prior years, including HUD–VASH vouchers. The Committee will 

continue to monitor leasing data to make sure residents are protected. 

Addressing Regulatory Burdens.—The Committee expects HUD 

to update regulations that don’t require congressional action. In recent years, public housing authorities [PHAs] have faced serious 

funding constraints, and the Committee voiced concerns at HUD’s 

budget hearing on the burdensome requirements they are expected 

to meet. It is therefore imperative that HUD work to ensure scarce 
110 

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 require different information 

that would provide better insight into its programs and improve its 

oversight. While notices can provide flexibility for addressing existing regulatory requirements, they do not actually reduce the 

amount of regulations. If regulations are outdated and no longer 

reflect effective program management and oversight, the Department should focus on repealing these requirements, not just creating temporary ad hoc workarounds. In fiscal year 2014, the Committee required HUD to report on regulations that need to be updated or new regulations that should be promulgated. The report 

that HUD submitted to the Committees in February reflects an initial effort from which to move forward. The Committee directs the 

Department to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 180 days after enactment of this act that 

highlights the regulatory reviews initiated and work accomplished 

since 2014’s reporting requirement and includes a list of regulation 

updates that are still outstanding, planned efforts to review additional regulatory and statutory requirements, and a timeline for 

completing this effort. 

Cash Management.—The Committee reminds the Department 

that the Office of Inspector General’s audit of HUD’s fiscal year 

2013 financial statements identified a material weakness in PIH’s 

cash management process. Specifically, it found that the process 

departs from Generally Accepted Accounting Principles [GAAP] 

and Treasury requirements. The Committee reiterates its concerns 

with PIH’s cash management practices, particularly since it limits 

understanding of the true funding needs in the voucher program. 

The Committee stresses the importance of resolving this audit 

finding swiftly and implementing a cash management process that 

complies with GAAP and Treasury requirements, and also provides 

greater transparency into voucher renewal needs. The Committee 

reminds the Department that it has failed to submit a plan to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations identifying how 

the Department will implement new cash management policies and 

require housing authorities to draw down funds; a practice most 

housing authorities already do through the public housing programs. 

Finance and Governance.—The Committee recognizes HUD’s efforts to identify and address critical skills that PHA boards should 

have to effectively oversee PHA operations. The Department is directed to provide semi-annual updates on their efforts to support 

the development of PHA boards. 

Set-Asides for Special Circumstances.—The Committee has provided a set-aside of $75,000,000 to allow the Secretary to adjust allocations to PHAs under certain circumstances. Qualifying factors 

include: (1) a significant increase, as determined by the Secretary, 

in renewal costs of tenant-based rental assistance resulting from 

unforeseen circumstances and voucher utilization or the impact 

from portability under section 8(r) of the act; (2) vouchers that 

were not in use during the previous 12-month period in order to 
111 

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. 

HUD–VASH.—The Committee recognizes the progress HUD– 

VASH partners have made in addressing homelessness among veterans, but rejects the Administration’s assumption that homelessness among veterans will end by the end of calendar year 2015. 

Therefore, the Committee has included $75,000,000 for new VASH 

vouchers. The Committee also recognizes the importance of the ongoing pilot on expanding the HUD–VASH program to American Indian veterans living in tribal areas. Given the importance of reducing homelessness for veterans in Indian country, the Committee directs the Department to update the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations within 180 days on the progress of this pilot. 

Administrative Fees.—The Committee recommends 

$1,620,000,000 for administrative fees, which is $400,037,000 less 

than the budget request and $90,000,000 more than the fiscal year 

2015 enacted level. 

Tenant Protection Vouchers.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $130,000,000 for tenant protection vouchers. These vouchers are provided to public housing residents whose buildings have 

health or safety issues, or whose projects are being demolished. 

However, the largest share of these vouchers is provided to tenants 

living in properties with expiring HUD assistance that may face 

rent increases if their owners opt out of HUD programs. In these 

instances, the vouchers ensure continued affordability of tenants’ 

housing. 

Section 811 Mainstream Vouchers.—The Committee recommends 

$107,643,000 to continue the rental assistance and administrative 

costs of this program. 

Family Unification Program.—Young adults associated with 

child welfare systems are more likely to experience homelessness 

as adults or as they transition to adulthood. The Committee recognizes that stable, affordable housing with appropriate services can 

help prevent children from being unnecessarily removed from their 

families and help youth exiting foster care transition to adulthood. 

The Committee is concerned that FUP vouchers are underutilized 

as a housing strategy to assist at-risk youth and that PHAs and 

local public child welfare agencies have had limited success in developing effective partnerships. According to a May 2014 report 

from HUD’s Office of Policy Development & Research, youth only 

comprise about 14 percent of the total program participants. Therefore, the Committee includes $20,000,000 for new Family Unification [FUP] vouchers. The Committee directs HUD to prioritize the 

award of these new vouchers to PHAs that will target them to 

youth and PHAs that have partnered with their local public child 

welfare agency to ensure youth referrals for these vouchers. In 

order to further improve the program and reduce the incidence of 

youth homelessness, the Committee also includes a provision to 
112 

permit FUP vouchers for youth to be used for up to 36 months instead of the current 18 month limit. 

The Committee is also concerned about how and when families 

and youth are being referred to receive FUP assistance. The Committee directs HUD to work with the Department of Health and 

Human Services Administration on Children and Families [ACF] to 

develop guidance and training materials necessary to improve connections between local agencies, increase collaboration, improve 

programs, goals, and supportive housing models that align at the 

local level. Further, HUD is directed to identify specific statutory 

or regulatory barriers either within the FUP program or child welfare service programs that limit individuals’ access to services and 

case management that can help improve outcomes for at-risk 

youth. The Committee directs HUD to report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations 180 days after enactment of 

this act on the status and results of these efforts. 

Family Self-Sufficiency.—In fiscal year 2015, the Committee provided flexibility to HUD to improve connections between vouchers 

serving youth exiting foster care and the Family Self Sufficiency 

program. HUD shall work with ACF to issue a Notice within 30 

days of enactment of this act to implement this new authority. 

Moving-to-Work.—The purpose of the Moving-to-Work [MTW] 

demonstration, established in the 1996 Appropriations Act, is to 

give public housing agencies [PHAs] and HUD the flexibility to design and test various approaches for providing and administering 

housing assistance that: reduce cost and achieve greater effectiveness in Federal expenditures; give incentives to families with children where the head of household is working, seeking work, or is 

preparing for work by participating in job training, educational programs, or programs that assist people to obtain employment and 

become economically self-sufficient; and increase housing choices 

for low-income families. The recent Abt Associates report, ‘‘Innovation in the Moving to Work Demonstration,’’ highlights how the current participating agencies have used MTW flexibilities to implement local innovations from small administrative changes to the 

creation of new programs. 

The Committee recommendation expands the MTW program by 

300 high performing PHAs. Currently, 39 PHAs participate in the 

MTW program. This number is less than 1 percent of all PHAs, 

and less than 3 percent of PHAs that administer both public housing and voucher programs. This level is insufficient to truly evaluate the MTW demonstration. In addition to being a small percentage of the total number of PHAs, the current participating agencies 

are not a representative sample of PHAs overall. For example, the 

average size of a PHA (including MTW agencies) that administers 

vouchers and public housing is nearly 1,900 units; excluding MTW 

agencies the average is just over 1,600 units; and for MTW agencies the average is 11,800. It is clear that the current demonstration is not reflective of the geographic distribution or program size 

of most PHAs. This undermines the ability of the MTW demonstration to test innovations that are applicable to the broader universe 

of PHAs. Without a meaningful expansion of the demonstration, 

the Department will continue to focus attention on the other 99 

percent of PHAs and the existing regulatory framework; and better 
113 

approaches to providing assisted-housing and encouraging self-sufficiency will continue to languish. 

Adding 300 PHAs to the MTW program cannot and should not 

be accomplished in 1 year. Steady expansion over several years is 

proposed not just for developing HUD capacity, but to also 

incentivize PHAs to improve their physical quality and financial 

management in order to qualify for MTW status. 

The Committee recommendation denies the Department’s request 

to grant exceptions to project-basing housing choice vouchers. Rather, the Department shall assess the 20 percent cap on project basing of Housing Choice Vouchers as embodied in 24 CFR part 983.6 

and report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

within 120 days of enactment of this act on the impact of a cap increase on developing new housing or rehabilitating existing stock. 

The Committee remains concerned about the Department’s efforts to make substantial changes to the present authority and financial terms of existing Moving-to-Work agreements. These provisions give cities the flexibility and resources to tackle the most vexing challenges they have in housing the very low-income families 

and individuals who lack the means to fully pay for their own shelter. The Department’s proposal to alter the current formula for 

public housing operating subsidies is estimated to cost cities millions and weaken their ability to serve their residents. The Committee recommendation includes an extension of the terms and 

agreements of existing MTW agreements to ensure these MTWs 

continue to exercise critical flexibilities that meet their local and 

unique housing and supportive service needs. 

To ensure that PHAs participating in the Moving-to-Work demonstration program are best serving the needs of those they serve, 

the Committee directs the Department to report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations within 120 days of enactment of this act identifying ways in which it is identifying PHAs 

that hold excessive reserves in lieu of providing housing and how 

it is remedying this issue. 

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(INCLUDING 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 2016, 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. 
114 

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $1,875,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,970,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,681,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,742,870,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for modernization and capital 

needs of public housing authorities (except Tribally Designated 

Housing Entities), including management improvements, resident 

relocation, and homeownership activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,742,870,000 for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is $227,130,000 less 

than the budget request and $132,130,000 less than the fiscal year 

2015 enacted level. 

Of the amount made available under this account, $35,000,000 is 

for supportive services for residents of public housing under the 

Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency [ROSS] program. The 

Committee also recommends up to $3,000,000 to support the ongoing financial and physical assessment activities performed by the 

Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC] and $1,000,000 for the cost 

of administrative and judicial receiverships. 

Flexibility To Meet Pressing Needs.—In an effort to achieve an 

appropriate balance between flexibility and accountability, the 

Committee has included provisions designed to provide PHAs with 

mechanisms to better meet their capital and operating needs. The 

first provision provides PHAs with the authority to transfer up to 

20 percent of their operating funds to their capital fund. This provides PHAs with not only the ability to reinvest operational savings 

in their properties, but also creates an incentive for them to do so. 

In addition, language is included for fiscal year 2016 that allows 

PHAs to transfer up to 25 percent of their capital funds to their 

operating fund. 

A second provision permits housing authorities to establish and 

maintain replacement reserves. Establishing and maintaining replacement or capital reserves is common practice in real estate, 

and in fact, they are required for projects in HUD multifamily programs. However, the existing obligation deadlines for public housing capital funds prevent the establishment of such reserves. This 

limits the ability of PHAs to save for planned capital projects necessary to maintain housing in good condition. 

The Committee expects the Department to move quickly to set 

up the rules and requirements around the capital reserves so that 

PHAs can utilize this new tool to address the significant backlog 

of capital needs and better plan for future capital requirements. 

This should include how HUD will ensure that funds are being 

saved for and spent on needed capital projects. 

Safety and Security in Public Housing.—The Committee directs 

at least $6,000,000 of the $23,000,000 recommended for emergency 

capital needs for safety and security measures necessary to address 
115 

crime and drug-related activity in public housing. The Committee 

has included this specific set-aside because there are PHAs facing 

safety and security issues that rely on these funds to protect their 

tenants. The Committee notes that the demand for these funds continues to grow while the amount that HUD is awarding to PHAs 

is decreasing. The 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 $15,000,000 to continue 

the Jobs-Plus Initiative. Jobs-Plus is based on a demonstration the 

Department began in 1998 that combined employment-related services and activities, financial incentives to work, and community 

support. The Committee supports HUD’s efforts to assist public 

housing residents in finding employment and achieving greater economic self-sufficiency through this initiative. 

Literacy Programs.—The Committee notes the importance of education and financial literacy in helping families improve life skills 

and increase their economic opportunities. An evaluation of the 

Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] Program conducted by HUD found 

that families that exited the program before graduation had less 

education than program graduates. Increasing educational and financial literacy services for public housing residents offers an opportunity to increase the success of participants in FSS and other 

employment programs. The Committee encourages HUD to work 

with national community-based literacy organizations to identify 

models that successfully incorporate adult literacy programs into 

HUD sponsored housing initiatives. Successful models should link 

these programs to job readiness and post-secondary transition initiatives, which will help adults with low literacy skills become more 

financially literate and gain the skills necessary to make informed 

decisions about the use and management of money. HUD should 

develop and share best practices with PHAs and other housing providers to expand services to adult learners. 

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $4,440,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 4,600,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,440,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,500,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the payment of operating subsidies to approximately 3,100 public housing authorities (except 

Tribally Designated Housing Entities) 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 $4,500,000,000 

for the public housing operating fund, which is $100,000,000 less 
116 

than the budget request and $60,000,000 more than the fiscal year 

2015 enacted level. 

The Committee has included provisions providing PHAs with increased flexibility to move funds between their capital and operating funds, as well as giving them the ability to establish capital 

reserves. The Committee notes that many PHAs have taken steps 

to achieve operational savings by improving energy efficiency or 

otherwise reducing expenses, and has included a provision that establishes a Utilities Conservation Pilot that incentivizes a reduction in public housing utility consumption, and costs, and provides 

PHAs with the ability to reinvest such savings in their properties 

and operations. 

The Committee recognizes that effective program oversight and 

management can be difficult when a program that operates on a 

calendar year basis is funded on a Federal fiscal year basis. To address this issue, the Committee has extended the period of availability of the funding for this program from 1-year to 2-year funding. 

The Committee also recognizes that PHAs face administrative 

and regulatory burdens and it reiterates support for regulatory and 

administrative relief that result in cost savings, while still maintaining effective and meaningful oversight. 

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $80,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 250,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 20,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 65,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative provides competitive grants 

to transform impoverished neighborhoods into functioning, sustainable, mixed-income neighborhoods with co-location of appropriate 

services, schools, public assets, transportation options, and access 

to jobs or job training. Choice Neighborhoods grants fund the preservation, rehabilitation, and transformation of public and HUD-assisted housing as well as their neighborhoods. 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. 

The program also includes 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 $65,000,000 for 

the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. This amount is $15,000,000 

less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and $185,000,000 less 
117 

than the budget request. Choice Neighborhoods seeks to build on 

the HOPE VI program by expanding the types of eligible grantees 

and allowing funding to be used on HUD-owned or assisted housing, as well as the surrounding community. However, the Committee notes that the work to replace distressed public housing is 

far from complete. Therefore, the Committee has included language 

that stipulates that not less than $40,000,000 of the funding provided shall be awarded to projects where public housing authorities 

are the lead applicant. The goal of Choice Neighborhoods is to replace distressed housing as a way to improve communities and the 

lives of residents. Therefore, HUD should not limit applicants to a 

narrowly defined set of neighborhoods since it may prevent the replacement of eligible and worthy public or assisted housing projects 

that are outside such designated neighborhoods from competing for 

funding. 

Inherent in the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative is the understanding that community transformation requires more than replacing housing. The creation of vibrant, sustainable communities 

also requires greater access to transportation, jobs and services 

that will increase opportunities for community residents. However, 

HUD funding cannot support all of these activities. The Committee 

has been encouraged by the ability of Choice Neighborhood grantees to leverage significant resources with their grant awards. 

Grantees have begun replacing affordable housing and making 

other community improvements, and when projects are complete, 

needed affordable housing units will be created or preserved. 

The Committee continues to emphasize the importance of integrating services for residents into Choice Neighborhood projects, 

which will help to ensure that the goal of improving the lives of 

residents can be met. In addition, the Committee urges HUD to 

identify successful partnership strategies that can not only be utilized by future Choice Neighborhood grantees, but can also serve 

as models for traditional public housing and HUD-assisted housing 

program providers that want to improve services for their residents. 

FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $75,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 85,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 75,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 75,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] program provides funding to 

help Housing Choice Voucher, project-based section 8, and Public 

Housing residents achieve self-sufficiency and economic independence. The FSS program is designed to provide service coordination 

through community partnerships that link residents with employment assistance, job training, child care, transportation, financial 

literacy, and other supportive services. The funding will be allocated through one competition to eligible Public Housing Authorities [PHAs] to support service coordinators who will serve both 

public housing and vouchers residents. 
118 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,000,000 for 

the Family Self-Sufficiency program in fiscal year 2016, an amount 

equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and $10,000,000 below 

the budget request. 

The Committee strongly supports the FSS program, which helps 

provide public housing and section 8 residents with the tools to improve their lives and achieve self-sufficiency. 

As HUD works to streamline and expand the program, the Committee also expects HUD to identify best practices in the field that 

are successfully improving outcomes for residents. The Committee 

encourages HUD to consider best practices for how to increase participation, improve alignment between eligible uses of funding and 

milestones, and incorporate financial education into the program 

design. 

INDIAN BLOCK GRANTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $716,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 740,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 710,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 710,000,000 

Note: The amounts for fiscal year 2015 enacted, the House allowance and fiscal year 2016 request include amounts funded or requested in the Community Development Fund for the Indian 

Community Development Block Grant program. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds the Indian 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. 

This account also funds the Indian Community Development 

Block Grant Program, as authorized under title I of the Housing 

and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. These 

funds are awarded on a competitive basis to Indian tribes for the 

funding of tribal community development needs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

To increase the transparency around funding for Native Americans, the Committee recommendation provides for both the Indian 

Housing Block Grant and Indian Community Development Block 

Grant programs under a single heading. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $650,000,000 for 

the Indian Housing Block Grant Program [IHBG], of which 

$2,000,000 is set aside for a credit subsidy to support a loan level 

not to exceed $17,452,007 for the Title VI Loan Guarantee Program. The recommended level of funding is equal to the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2015 and $10,000,000 below the budget request. 
119 

The recommendation also includes $60,000,000 for the Indian 

Community Development Block Grant Program [ICDBG]. The recommended level of funding is $6,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015 and $20,000,000 below the budget request. 

Recognizing the tremendous needs in Indian Country and the limited resources available to address these challenges, the Committee 

includes a new provision this year limiting the amount of funding 

a tribe may receive from the IHBG program to not more than 10 

percent. The Committee directs HUD to collect data as part of 

tribes’ Indian Housing Plan submissions on new program activity 

that is generated due to this provision. 

IHBG is a vital resource for tribal governments to address the 

dire housing conditions in Indian Country. Access to affordable 

housing remains in a critical state for many tribes across the country. Native Americans are twice as likely to live in poverty compared to the rest of the Nation. As a result, the housing challenges 

on tribal lands are daunting. According to the U.S. Census American Community Survey for 2006–2010, 8.1 percent of homes on 

American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust land are 

overcrowded, compared to 3.1 percent of households nationwide. 

The number of households on reservation lands with severe housing costs that spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing has risen 46 percent over the past decade. 

The Committee believes the housing goals for American Indians, 

Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians established in the Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, including section 802, remain a priority. The housing programs authorized in NAHASDA serve communities who are disproportionately 

low income, more likely to experience homelessness or overcrowded 

living conditions and unable to utilize traditional lending sources. 

The programs have aided thousands of individuals and families in 

the pursuit of safe, affordable housing and the committee encourages HUD to continue providing appropriate assistance and resources based on continued demonstrable need. 

Coordinated Environmental Reviews for Tribal Housing and Related Infrastructure.—The subcommittee staff have conducted site 

visits to several tribes to better understand the challenges to developing and maintaining affordable housing in Indian Country. The 

conditions found there were disturbing and the magnitude of the 

need overwhelming. Many tribally designated housing entities lack 

access to financing and credit to develop new housing due to the 

difficulty of financing when trust lands are involved. Most development projects take 3 years or longer to complete due to a lack of 

financial resources, issues related to land and permitting approvals, and the lack of infrastructure in many of these sparse, remote 

locations. 

Additionally, in fiscal year 2015, the Committee directed HUD to 

collaborate with the Council on Environmental Quality and affected Federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior, 

Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, the 

Federal Highway Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency, to develop a coordinated environmental review process 

to simplify tribal housing development and its related infrastruc-
120 

ture needs. The Committee expects HUD to continue to update the 

Committee on the status and progress of these on-going efforts. 

Technical Assistance.—Limited capacity hinders the ability of 

many tribes to effectively address their housing needs. The Committee recommendation includes funding for technical assistance 

needs in Indian country as part of the Department’s overall technical assistance funding within the Office of Policy Development 

and Research. 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 will reflect the unique needs and culture of Native 

Americans. An important aspect of technical assistance is the dissemination of best practices. In March of 2014, GAO found that 

HUD had not shared promising housing practices more generally 

across tribes in a way that would make them easily accessible. 

Such information about successful approaches would help tribes 

use their IHBG funding in the most efficient and effective ways to 

provide affordable housing in their communities. The Committee 

directs HUD to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment of this act on how the Department currently disseminates best practices to tribes, what 

practices it has implemented in response to GAO’s findings, and 

what additional steps can be taken. 

Oversight Plan.—Within 30 days of enactment of this act, the 

Committee directs HUD to submit a fiscal year 2016 oversight plan 

for the funds under this heading to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Program account 

Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2015 .......................................................................................................... $7,000,000 $744,047,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................................................... 8,000,000 1,269,841,270 

House allowance ................................................................................................................. 8,000,000 1,269,841,270 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 7,000,000 1,111,111,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for Indian families, Indian tribes, and their tribally designated housing entities 

that otherwise could not acquire housing financing because of the 

unique status of Indian trust land. HUD continues to be the largest 

single source of financing for housing in tribal communities. This 

program makes it possible to promote sustainable reservation communities by providing access to financing for higher income Native 

Americans to achieve homeownership within their Native communities. As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this 

account includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees authorized under this program. 
121 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,000,000 in program subsidies to support a loan level of $1,111,111,000. This 

subsidy amount is equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted subsidy 

level and $1,000,000 less than the budget request. The Committee 

directs the Department to submit a report to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment of this 

act on how HUD has utilized the funding provided for administrative contract expenses including management processes and systems. This report should include at a minimum: to what extent applicable Office of Native American Assistance Programs [ONAP] 

systems have been carried out in coordination with the Office of the 

Chief Information Officer; and what improvements in management 

and oversight have been implemented since March 2014 to prevent 

fraud. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $330,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 332,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 335,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 330,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS [HOPWA] 

program provides States and localities with resources and incentives to devise long-term, comprehensive strategies for meeting the 

housing and supportive service needs of persons living with HIV/ 

AIDS and their families. 

Since 1990, by statute, 90 percent of formula-appropriated funds 

are distributed to qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the 

basis of the number of AIDS cases and incidence of AIDS reported 

to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by March 31 of 

the year preceding the fiscal year. The remaining 10 percent of 

funds are awarded through a national competition, with priority 

given to the renewal of funding for expiring agreements consistent 

with appropriations act requirements. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $330,000,000 for 

the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS [HOPWA] program. This level of funding is $2,000,000 less than the President’s 

budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 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. 

HOPWA Formula Modernization.—The Committee recommendation includes a change to the HOPWA formula requested in the 

President’s budget and part of the administration’s comprehensive 

National HIV/AIDS Strategy. Currently, 53 percent of the statutorily required cumulative AIDS cases used to determine the formula program represent deceased individuals. The Committee rec-
122 

ommendation seeks to distribute funding more equitably to reflect 

the HIV epidemic’s impact among communities with highest burden of HIV cases while addressing the increasingly disproportionate impact of HIV on communities of poverty and color. 

The formula modernization requires that 75 percent of the formula funds be distributed to cities with population greater than 

500,000 and with more than 2,000 persons living with HIV, and 

the remaining 25 percent distributed to States and metropolitan 

statistical areas based on fair market rents (to account for high 

housing costs in certain areas) and area poverty indexes (to account 

for high-poverty areas lacking services). The Committee is aware of 

concerns in certain communities that would receive substantial reduction in funding as a result of the formula modernization, and 

has included language to prevent any grantee from losing more 

than 10 percent or gaining more than 20 percent of the average 

share of the total formula allocation of the previous fiscal year. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $3,000,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 2,800,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,000,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,900,000,000 

Note: Amounts above exclude funding provided or requested for the Indian Community Development Block Grant Program. These funds are reflected in the Indian Block Grants account. 

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 insular 

areas. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $2,900,000,000 for Community Development Block Grants [CDBG]. The recommended amount is 

$100,000,000 more than the budget request and $100,000,000 less 

than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. CDBG funding provides 

States and entitlement communities with resources that allow 

them to undertake a wide range of community development activities, including public infrastructure improvements, housing reha-
123 

bilitation 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 Committee notes the importance of States 

and local grantees meeting the program’s three national objectives, 

as they utilize the program’s resources to address a wide range of 

community needs. As HUD works with communities to determine 

eligible activities that meet the national objective of benefiting lowand-moderate-income persons, the Committee encourages the Department to extend flexibility for rural communities under 1,000 

residents to use alternate sources of data to establish Low-Moderate Income Survey Data [LMISD] when American Community 

Survey [ACS] data is considered by the Community Development 

Block Grant applicant to be unreliable. 

To ensure the program remains flexible, but also accountable and 

transparent, the Committee recommendation continues provisions 

in bill language that prohibit any community from selling its 

CDBG award to another community and that any funding provided 

to a for-profit entity for an economic development project funded 

under this act 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. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Program account 

Limitation on 

guaranteed 

loans 

Appropriations, 2015 .......................................................................................................... .......................... $500,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................................................... .......................... 300,000,000 

House allowance ................................................................................................................. .......................... 300,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... .......................... 300,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal loan 

guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and nonentitlement communities to cover the costs of acquiring real property, rehabilitation of publicly owned real property, housing rehabilitation, and other economic development activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides a loan level guarantee 

of $300,000,000, which is $200,000,000 below the fiscal year 2015 

enacted level and equal to the budget request. The Committee requires HUD to collect fees to offset credit subsidy costs such that 

the program operates at a zero credit subsidy cost. 

This program enables CDBG recipients to use their CDBG dollars to leverage financing for economic development projects, community facilities, and housing rehabilitation programs. Communities are allowed to borrow up to five times their most recent 

CDBG allocation. 
124 

The Committee expects HUD to ensure that a financing structure is in place by the beginning of the fiscal year so that this important program remains available to communities. In addition, 

HUD must provide communities with information and any technical assistance they may need to successfully utilize the program. 

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $900,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,060,000,000 

House allowance 1 .................................................................................. 900,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 66,000,000 

1 House allowance includes a $133,000,000 transfer from the Housing Trust Fund. 

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 $66,000,000 for 

the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This amount is 

$834,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The 

amount is $994,000,000 less than the budget request, but the budget also proposes to fund a $10,000,000 Self-Help and Assisted 

Homeownership Program [SHOP] program out of this account, 

which the Committee has rejected. 

The Committee notes the substantial gains made by HOME in 

increasing the supply and affordability of housing for low-income 

families. According to the April 2015 HOME National Production 

Report, since 1992 States and localities have used HOME funds to 

produce 497,368 homebuyer homes, 468,990 rental homes, and 

232,785 rehabilitated owner-occupied homes. Another 300,708 families have received tenant-based rental assistance through the 

HOME program. HOME has been particularly successful in helping 

extremely low-income families (at or below 30 percent of area median income) who have received 40 percent of assistance for affordable rental housing during the past 5 years. The Committee recommendation includes a provision that makes an exception to the 

30-day eviction notice in instances where a tenant poses a threat. 

Similar exceptions are authorized in other housing assistance programs. 

Community Land Trusts.—The Committee recognizes the importance of preserving affordable homeownership opportunities, especially when change in ownership is initiated. The Committee includes a provision to clarify existing authority to continue allowing 
125 

Community Land Trusts to exercise purchase options, rights of 

first refusal, or other preemptive rights to purchase housing on 

their trusted land to ensure affordability is maintained through 

ownership changes. 

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $50,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... 50,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 55,700,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program is comprised of the Self-Help Homeownership Program 

[SHOP], which assists low-income homebuyers willing to contribute 

‘‘sweat equity’’ toward the construction of their houses. 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, and 

funds the rehabilitation and modifications homes for Veterans that 

are low-income and disabled as authorized by Section 1079 of Public Law 113–291. These programs help to develop the capacity of 

nonprofit community development organizations to carry out community development and affordable housing projects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $55,700,000 for the Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Program, which is $5,700,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2015 enacted level, and $55,700,000 more than the 

request. The Committee rejects the Administration’s proposal to 

shift a portion of the funding for these activities to the HOME program, and make the section 4 program activities an eligible activity 

of the proposed Transformation Initiative. The Committee supports 

leaving this heading as a standalone account and opposes efforts to 

shift these funds into other accounts. The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for SHOP, as authorized under section 11 

of the Housing Opportunity Extension Act of 1996; $35,000,000 for 

capacity building as authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993; $5,000,000 to carry out capacity building activities in rural communities; and, $5,700,000 million for a program 

to rehab and modify housing for Veterans that are low-income and 

disabled. The Committee notes that funding for technical assistance is being provided under the Office of Policy Development and 

Research and directs funds available for section 4 to be used solely 

for capacity building activities. 

The Rural Capacity Building Program is intended for truly national organizations. For the purposes of the National Rural Capacity Building Notification of Funding Availably [NOFA], the Committee directs HUD to define an eligible national organization as 

a nonprofit entity that has on-going experience in rural housing, including experience working with rural housing organizations, local 

governments, and Indian tribes, as evidenced by past and con-
126 

tinuing work in one or more States in eight or more of HUD’s Federal regions. 

Energy Star.—The Committee remains concerned that the Energy Star requirements in the SHOP Notice of Funding Availability 

[NOFA] while well-intentioned may increase costs in a time that 

limited resources should be targeted to producing homes that comply with local building and safety codes. In fiscal year 2015, the 

Committee directed the Department to submit a report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 120 days 

of enactment of this act that evaluates: (1) if the Energy Star requirement in this program’s NOFA are consistent with Energy Star 

requirements across HUD programs; and (2) if this requirement is 

a barrier to participation, especially in rural areas, considering factors such as the cost of certifications, access to Home Energy Raters or certified HVAC contractors, or the mortgage now exceeding 

USDA’s Area Loan Limits. The Committee notes that the report is 

overdue and reminds the Department of this requirement. 

Program to Rehabilitate or Modify Housing for Disabled and 

Low-Income Veterans.—About 5.5 million of our Nation’s Veterans 

have disabilities and 1.4 million are at risk of homelessness. For 

Veterans returning home with severe injuries such as amputation, 

readjustment can be hampered by the lack of a wheelchair ramp. 

Some older Veterans, who served honorably years ago, must navigate stairs that present a falling hazard, roofs that leak, or homes 

without heat or hot water. 

These problems are partially addressed through programs such 

as the Specially Adapted Housing [SAH] program administered by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs which provides grants to eligible disabled Veterans and servicemembers for housing adaptations 

due to disability. However, SAH does not fully address all Veterans 

with disabilities and it does not provide for low-income Veterans 

who have homes in need of urgent repairs. In response, Congress 

authorized a program to help enhance programs like SAH in the 

Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act to provide 

competitive grants through HUD to non-profit organizations to 

rehab and modify housing for Veterans. The Committee recommendation includes $5,700,000 for this new initiative to help 

some of the more than 50,000 Veterans wounded in recent conflicts 

and millions of disabled and low-income Veterans in need of safer 

housing. 

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $2,135,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 2,480,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,185,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,235,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Homeless Assistance Grants Program provides funding to 

break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons and 

families to permanent housing. This is done by providing rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and permanent housing, 

prevention, rapid re-housing, and supportive services to homeless 

persons and families or those at risk of homelessness. The emer-
127 

gency 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 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 attain housing and move toward self-sufficiency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,235,000,000 

for Homeless Assistance Grants in fiscal year 2016. This amount 

is $245,000,000 less than the President’s request, and $100,000,000 

more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

As part of the Committee recommendation, at least $1,918,000,000 will support the Continuum of Care Program, including the renewal of existing projects, and the Rural Housing 

Stability Assistance Program. Based on the renewal burden, HUD 

may also support planning and other activities authorized by the 

HEARTH Act. The recommendation also includes at least 

$250,000,000 for the emergency solutions grants program [ESG]. 

The Committee supports HUD’s efforts to leverage existing housing resources, such as section 8 vouchers, to serve the homeless. 

The Committee also supports replacing existing, underperforming 

projects with new permanent supportive housing projects. Therefore, if funds remain available in this account after meeting renewal demands and funding ESG, HUD may use it for new 

projects, provided that such projects are targeted to areas with the 

greatest need, as measured by homeless data. 

Data on Youth Homelessness.—The Committee believes an accurate count is critical to understanding the scale of youth homelessness. The Annual Homelessness Assessment Report [AHAR] provides Congress and the public with meaningful information on the 

progress in ending homelessness. It is based on the point-in time 

counts conducted by local communities and information from the 

Homelessness Management Information Systems [HMIS]. However, 

other Federal agencies have youth-specific data that can help communities better understand the scope of youth homelessness and 

housing instability in their area. The Committee directs HUD to incorporate additional Federal data on youth homelessness into the 

AHAR. This information is important to ensure that communities 

develop and implement policies that respond to the local needs of 

homeless youth. The Committee recommendation also provides up 

to $2,000,000 to fund a national study, as authorized by the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, on the prevalence, needs, and characteristics of homelessness among youth and directs the Department to work with the Department of Health and Human Services 

to conduct this critical research. 

Comprehensive Interventions to Prevent and End Youth Homelessness.— The Committee also recognizes that there is a lack of 

empirical data on youth appropriate solutions for ending homelessness. The Committee recommendation includes $33,000,000 for a 

pilot to implement comprehensive approaches to serving homeless 
128 

youth in up to 10 communities, of which at least 4 are to be in 

rural areas. 

Clarifying Eligibility and Documentation Requirements for Homeless Youth.—The Committee is concerned that service providers are 

turning homeless youth away due to a lack of clarity on HUD’s existing eligibility and documentation requirements. While HUD has 

issued some guidance on how youth qualify for assistance under 

the current definition, service providers remain challenged with 

identifying and serving youth who are unaccompanied or head of 

household, faced with domestic violence, trafficking, or other unsafe 

circumstances—the most vulnerable and hard-to-reach homeless 

youth—due to lack of clarity in HUD’s regulation and guidance. 

The Committee continues to hear from service providers that documentation requirements pose a barrier for individuals and families, 

especially youth, to access HUD programs and services. The Committee includes language that waives the requirement for youth 24 

and under to provide third-party documentation to receive housing 

and supportive services within the Continuums of Care. The Committee strongly believes documentation requirements should not be 

a basis for denying access to necessary services. The Committee directs HUD to issue clarifying guidance, through notice and Web 

casts, on homeless youth eligibility criteria to ensure no youth eligible go unserved where there is the local capacity to house and/or 

provide services. 

Training and Technical Assistance.—The Committee believes 

that in addition to clarifying its policies, HUD must also work to 

strengthen its partnerships with other Federal agencies to seek 

comprehensive and cross-agency solutions to youth homelessness. 

The Committee recognizes that it can be difficult for local communities, as well as housing and service providers, to navigate different Federal program rules, requirements and cultures. The Committee is reminded of similar challenges between local Continuums 

of Care and VA Medical Centers when VASH vouchers were initially funded. Collaborative training sessions at the local level that 

included not just HUD and VA headquarters staff, but also service 

providers and the local HUD and VA staff were critical to overcoming many of these barriers. In order to improve the effectiveness of service delivery for homeless youth at the local level, HUD, 

in coordination with the United States Interagency Council on 

Homelessness is directed to hold similar cross-agency trainings at 

the local level. These trainings should include, but not be limited 

to the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, 

and local service providers, including homeless education liaisons 

and child welfare representatives. The Committee encourages the 

Department to design trainings that eliminate confusion about eligibility requirements, improve processes for youth who need to access housing and services, and help communities develop policies to 

ensure that appropriate resources are dedicated to homeless youth. 

The Committee has included $5,000,000 to support this and other 

technical assistance efforts addressing youth homelessness. These 

technical assistance funds may also be used in conjunction with the 

comprehensive pilot funded under this heading. 

Performance Partnership Pilots.—The Committee has included 

language permitting HUD to partner with other Federal agencies 
129 

in the Performance Partnership Pilot program, a cross-Federal 

agency initiative serving disconnected youth through innovative, 

cost-effective, and outcome-focused strategies. The Committee believes there is a critical role HUD can play in this pilot, especially 

as communities seek to address the housing and self-sufficiency 

needs of disconnected youth. 

HUD shall inform the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 45 days after enactment of this act, how the 

Department will strategically align within the Performance Partnership Pilot program. This shall also include (1) the amount and 

source of funding the Department will allocate to the pilot; (2) the 

Department’s role in grantee criteria and selection processes, and; 

(3) the Department’s role in oversight and accountability for its 

contributions. Not later than 15 days after pilots have been announced, the Department shall brief the Committees on the scope 

of each pilot project, including goals, objectives and intended outcomes, and an outline of specific metrics that will be used to evaluate and determine the effectiveness of the pilot project and its outcomes. 

Annual Homeless Assessment Report.—AHAR is a result of Congressional directives beginning in 2001, that charged the Department to collect data on homelessness, using the newly implemented 

Homeless Management Information System [HMIS]. HMIS data, 

information provided by Continuums of Care, and a point-in-time 

count of sheltered and unsheltered persons from one night in January of each year informs AHAR. The Committee is encouraged that 

HUD is sharing homeless data widely, and that Federal, State and 

local service providers use AHAR to determine needs and develop 

strategies to address homelessness. 

The Committee believes HMIS can be used as a platform for information gathering in other Federal programs. Streamlining data 

to reflect the various Federal data sources will allow the Federal 

Government to better understand the scope and needs of homeless 

populations, to then inform a strategic alignment of Federal services. The Committee directs HUD to incorporate additional Federal 

data on homelessness in the AHAR. This information is important 

to ensure that communities develop and implement policies that respond to local needs. To support continued data collection and 

AHAR, the Committee has included $7,000,000 to support AHAR 

data collection and analysis. The Department shall submit the 

AHAR report by August 29, 2016. The Committee further hopes 

that HUD’s efforts to increase participation in the HMIS effort will 

lead to improved information about and understanding of the Nation’s homeless. 

Renewal Costs.—The Committee directs HUD to continue to include 5-year projections of the costs of renewing existing projects 

as part of the fiscal year 2017 budget justification. This should include estimated costs of renewing permanent supportive housing. 
130 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $9,730,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 10,760,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 10,654,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,826,000,000 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Section 8 project-based rental assistance provides a rental subsidy to a private landlord that is tied to a specific housing unit, as 

opposed to a voucher, which allows a recipient to seek a unit, subject primarily to certain rent caps. Amounts in this account include 

funding for the renewal of and amendments to expiring section 8 

project-based contracts, including section 8, moderate rehabilitation, and single room occupancy [SRO] housing. This account also 

provides funds for contract administrators. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The section 8 project-based rental assistance [PBRA] program 

supports an estimated 17,400 contracts with private owners of multifamily housing. Through this program, HUD and private sector 

partners support the preservation of safe, stable and sanitary housing for more than 1.2 million low-income Americans. Without 

PBRA, many affordable housing projects would convert to market 

rates with large rent increases that current tenants would be unable to afford. 

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $10,826,000,000 for the annual renewal of project-based contracts, 

of which up to $215,000,000 is for the cost of contract administrators. The recommended level of funding is $1,096,000,000 more 

than the amount provided in fiscal year 2015 and is $66,000,000 

more than the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation 

rejects the administration’s proposed change to the medical deduction calculation, which results in the increased funding above the 

requested level. The Committee again rejects the administration’s 

proposal to renew senior preservation rental assistance contracts 

[SPRAC] in this account. These contracts were originally funded in 

the Housing for the Elderly account and renewal funding is again 

provided under that heading. 

The Committee recommendation completes the process of shifting 

the funding cycle for contract renewals to a calendar year basis. 

This funding cycle is consistent with the practices for the tenantbased rental assistance and public housing programs. 

Performance-Based Contract Administrators.—Performance-based 

contract administrators [PBCAs] are typically public housing authorities or State housing finance agencies. They are responsible 

for conducting on-site management reviews of assisted properties; 

adjusting contract rents; and reviewing, processing, and paying 

monthly vouchers submitted by owners. The Committee notes that 

PBCAs are integral to the Department’s efforts to be more effective 

and efficient in the oversight and monitoring of this program. The 

Committee believes that fair and open competition is the best way 

to ensure that the taxpayer receives the greatest benefit for the 
131 

costs incurred. Now that the previous litigation has been resolved, 

the Department is directed to ensure that the PBCA selection process is, to the greatest extent legally permissible, full, open, and 

fair. 

Oversight of Property Owners.—The Committee places a priority 

on providing access to safe, sanitary, and affordable housing to 

those most in need. If owners fail to maintain their properties in 

accordance with HUD standards, they should be held accountable. 

While there is a tension between holding property owners responsible and ensuring tenants don’t lose their housing, HUD has tools 

at its disposal to hold owners accountable without putting tenants 

at risk. 

HUD has taken important steps to increase its oversight of multifamily properties. These steps include: completing a risk rating 

assessment for all PBRA properties, assigning Project Managers to 

address performance problems at troubled assets, and using inspections by the Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC] to identify 

physical and financial issues. Properties with physical inspection 

scores below 30 are referred to the Departmental Enforcement Center [DEC] for further intervention. DEC may pursue civil penalties 

or other enforcement measures. To ensure continued attention to 

this issue, the Committee recommendation maintains a general 

provision that requires HUD to take specific steps to ensure that 

physical deficiencies in properties are quickly addressed, and requires the Secretary to take explicit actions if the owner fails to 

maintain them. These actions include imposing civil money penalties, working to secure a different owner for the property, or 

transferring the section 8 contract to another the property. The 

Committee wants to preserve critical project-based section 8 contracts, and believes this goal can be achieved while holding property owners accountable for their actions. 

The Committee expects HUD to continue to move quickly to identify problem properties and owners and find an appropriate remedy. The Committee directs HUD to provide semi-annual reports to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the number of projects that receive multiple exigent health and safety violations or physical inspection scores below 30. HUD shall also identify the actions taken to address safety concerns, including the frequency with which civil money penalties are imposed, contracts are 

transferred to another property, or ownership is transferred. The 

Committee expects that with increased enforcement the number of 

troubled properties will continue to be reduced. 

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $420,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 455,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 416,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 420,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds housing for the elderly under section 202 of 

the Housing Act of 1959. Under this program, the Department provides capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing for seniors, and provides project- 
132 

based rental assistance contracts [PRAC] to support operational 

costs for such units. Tenants living in section 202 supportive housing units can access a variety of community-based services to keep 

living independently in the community and age in place. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The section 202 program provides nearly 400,000 federally assisted, privately owned affordable housing units for the elderly. The 

Committee recommends an appropriation of $420,000,000 for the 

section 202 program. This level is equal to the level provided in fiscal year 2015 and $35,000,000 less than the budget request. The 

Committee recommendation includes $343,000,000 in new appropriations in addition to carryover balances and residual receipts to 

fully fund all annual project-rental assistance contract renewals 

and amendments, and $77,000,000 for service coordinators and the 

continuation of existing congregate service grants. 

Housing with Services Models for the Elderly.—In fiscal year 

2014, the Committee provided funding for a demonstration program to test different models of housing with services for the elderly. The Committee is concerned that the Department’s demonstration program may have the unintended consequence of excluding 

properties that are not located in large metropolitan areas. Such 

properties tend to be smaller, and according to the Department, 

only 18 percent of HUD-assisted multifamily properties for the elderly in rural areas have a service coordinator. In fact, the more 

rural the property, the less likely it is to have a service coordinator. 

For these reasons, the Committee urges HUD to partner with other 

Federal agencies in order to pursue a demonstration design on 

service coordination that is adapted to non-metropolitan areas. In 

order to implement such a design, however, HUD will need to address challenges such as low population density, large geographic 

distances, limited public transportation, workforce shortages, limited housing stock, fewer multidisciplinary staff, and less care coordination. Recognizing these challenges, the time constraints of 

the original funding provided, and the need for improved coordination and partnership across Federal agencies, the Committee does 

not direct the Department to delay the current demonstration design until a non-metropolitan component is designed. 

The Committee recommendation permits the Department to collect residual receipts, and to the extent such amounts exceed any 

remaining renewal and amendment needs, those funds may first be 

used to carry out a model design component on housing with services for the elderly located in non-metropolitan areas. Remaining 

funds may be used to supplement the Department’s current demonstration. 

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $135,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 177,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 152,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 137,000,000 
133 

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 $137,000,000 for 

the section 811 program. This level is $40,000,000 less than the 

budget request and is $2,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 

enacted level. This level of funding, in addition to residual receipts, 

recaptures, and other unobligated balances, supports all PRAC renewals and amendments. Should the total available resources exceed the need for renewals, the Secretary shall direct such resources to a new competition for project rental assistance to State 

housing finance agencies. 

HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $47,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 60,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 47,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 47,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Counseling Assistance Program provides comprehensive housing counseling services to eligible homeowners and 

tenants through grants to nonprofit intermediaries, State government entities, and other local and national agencies. Eligible counseling activities include pre- and post-purchase education, personal 

financial management, reverse mortgage product education, foreclosure prevention, mitigation, and rental counseling. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $47,000,000 for 

the Housing Counseling Assistance program, which is $13,000,000 

less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The funds provided will help individuals and families 

across the country make better informed housing decisions. Specifically, it will support competitive counseling grants and training activities. In addition, the administrative contract support funding 

includes resources for financial audits and technical assistance. 

The Committee continues language requiring HUD to obligate 

counseling grants within 180 days of enactment of this act, as well 

as permitting HUD to publish multiyear NOFAs, contingent on an-
134 

nual appropriations. This should result in administrative savings 

for HUD and grantees. 

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $18,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 30,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 30,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides amendment funding for housing assisted 

under a variety of HUD housing programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,000,000 for 

HUD-assisted, State-aided, noninsured rental housing projects, 

consistent with the budget request. This amount is $12,000,000 

more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Committee recommendation includes a provision to allow the conversion of these 

projects to section 8, at no additional cost. The Committee hopes 

that the conversion of these projects, through the Rental Assistance 

Demonstration, will lead to the eventual elimination of these outdated programs. 

PAYMENT TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 11,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 11,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 

Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 

Improvement Act of 2000, authorizes the Secretary to establish 

Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 

the construction, design, and performance of manufactured homes. 

All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs of administering the act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support the manufactured housing standards programs, of which the full amount of 

$10,000,000 is expected to be derived from fees collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund account. No direct appropriation is provided. The total amount recommended is 

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

2015 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 ac-
135 

count. The Committee expects the Department to move forward 

with this authority. 

The Committee notes that carryover in the program, along with 

increased label fees, will allow HUD to continue its current activities. The Committee recognizes that manufactured housing production has declined substantially since peak industry production in 

1998. The Committee is perplexed as to the reason for the continual growth in expenditures for the program which do not reflect 

or correspond with this decline. 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation on direct loans Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Administrative contract expenses 

Appropriations, 2015 ......................................................... $400,000,000,000 $20,000,000 $130,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ...................................................... 400,000,000,000 5,000,000 174,000,000 

House allowance ................................................................ 400,000,000,000 5,000,000 130,000,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................. 400,000,000,000 5,000,000 130,000,000 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation on direct 

loans 

Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................................... $30,000,000,000 $20,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................................... 30,000,000,000 5,000,000 

House allowance ..................................................................................................... 30,000,000,000 5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................................... 30,000,000,000 5,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the 

mortgage and loan insurance activity of HUD mortgage/loan insurance programs. These include the mutual mortgage insurance 

[MMI] fund, cooperative management housing insurance [CMHI] 

fund, general insurance [GI] fund, and the special risk insurance 

[SRI] fund. For presentation and accounting control purposes, these 

are divided into two sets of accounts based on shared characteristics. The unsubsidized insurance programs of the mutual mortgage 

insurance fund and the cooperative management housing insurance 

fund constitute one set; and the general risk insurance and special 

risk insurance funds make up the other. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has included the following amounts for the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program account: a limitation on guaranteed loans of $400,000,000,000, a limitation on direct loans of 

$5,000,000, and $130,000,000 for administrative contract expenses. 

For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends 

$30,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans and a limitation on direct loans of $5,000,000. 

Following the housing crisis, FHA’s role in the housing market 

expanded considerably, as it played the countercyclical role for 

which it was designed. While FHA played a critical role in ensuring 

a functioning housing finance market during the crisis, its expanded role came with additional risk. As a result of its increased 
136 

role in the market, as well as poor quality loans in its portfolio that 

were insured under laxer requirements, FHA suffered significant 

losses. This ultimately resulted in FHA seeking $1,700,000,000 

from Treasury at the end of fiscal year 2013 to cover expected 

losses—the first time FHA needed to draw on taxpayer funding in 

its history. 

Beginning in 2009, this administration implemented policies to 

tighten lending standards and increase premiums. These changes 

have improved the quality of its loans and increased the solvency 

of the MMI Fund. As a result of the increased fees and improvements in its loss mitigation strategies, the MMI Fund is not expected to require any additional funding from Treasury, and has 

been on a strong trajectory to reach the 2 percent capital requirement. However, the administration’s decision to reduce annual 

mortgage insurance premiums has setback that effort. While the 

Committee is pleased that the condition of the fund is improving, 

it expects HUD to remain focused on the fund’s financial health. 

Administrative Fee.—The Committee supports the goal of improving FHA’s risk management and quality control efforts and has 

included resources to do so. The Committee is disappointed that 

the budget request proposing a new fee to offset administrative 

costs is the same language as in fiscal year 2015. Numerous concerns were raised by stakeholders in reaction to the 2015 request, 

yet the 2016 budget request fails to address those concerns. As 

such, the Committee does not include authority for HUD to charge 

a fee to provide additional funds for FHA’s administrative costs. 

Despite the exclusion of the proposed fee, the Committee continues 

to stress that FHA needs to provide clear and consistent guidance 

to lenders so that they can better assess risk associated with the 

mortgages they originate. The Committee also encourages FHA’s 

stakeholders to take into consideration that such guidance and 

clarity may be difficult without the additional resources such a fee 

would provide. Finally, the Committee encourages FHA and its 

partners to work together to address their mutual challenges. 

Multifamily Housing.—The Committee is concerned that HUD’s 

2012 changes to its Project Capital Needs Assessment for multifamily lenders, while well intentioned, may have the unintended 

consequence of unduly constraining credit that is necessary for the 

development of affordable multifamily housing. To address this 

concern, the Committee directs HUD to report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment 

on the data supporting the merits of continuing the changes included in Notice H–2012–27. In particular, the report should include a review of changes to the initial reserve calculations and replacement reserve calculations, and a recommendation on whether 

a clearer definition of intrusive testing requirements would benefit 

HUD and lenders without creating additional risk. 
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, 2015 ............................................................................................... $500,000,000,000 $23,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................................... 500,000,000,000 28,320,000 

House allowance ..................................................................................................... 500,000,000,000 23,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................................... 500,000,000,000 23,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Government National Mortgage Association [Ginnie Mae], 

through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees privately issued securities backed by pools of Government-guaranteed 

mortgages. Ginnie Mae is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United States within the Department. Its powers are 

prescribed generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as 

amended. Ginnie Mae is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to 

guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that are based on and backed by a trust, or pool, composed of 

mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the FHA, the Rural 

Housing Service, or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ginnie 

Mae’s guarantee of mortgage-backed securities is backed by the full 

faith and credit of the United States. This account also funds all 

salaries and benefits funding to support Ginnie Mae. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments 

on mortgage-backed securities of $500,000,000,000. This level is the 

same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

The bill allows Ginnie Mae to use $23,000,000 for salaries and expenses. This is equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and 

$5,320,000 less than the budget request. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $72,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 50,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 50,000,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 90,000,000 1 Includes $40,000,000 by transfer. 

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, edu-
138 

cational 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 $50,000,000 for 

research, technology, and community development activities in fiscal year 2016. This level is $22,000,000 less than the fiscal year 

2015 enacted level and equal to the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation will continue to support market 

surveys, such as the American Housing Survey, that are integral 

to HUD’s ability to understand its own programs and also help enhance public and private entities’ knowledge of housing conditions 

in the United States. The Committee strongly encourages the Department to continue funding local rent surveys of areas affected 

by changing economic conditions and natural disasters. 

Fair Market Rents [FMRs] are used to across HUD rental assistance programs. However, in certain counties the current methodology does not accurately reflect the current housing market, and 

additional local area surveys are necessary. The Committee recommends that HUD designate funding for additional local surveys 

for communities where the data used by HUD does not accurately 

reflect the market. 

The Committee also continues language that allows HUD to 

enter into cooperative agreements, which allows the Office of Policy 

Development and Research to partner with other Federal agencies, 

researchers, or foundations on research that will inform HUD’s understanding of its programs and the people who rely on them. This 

structure reduces duplicative research by leveraging existing 

projects to meet the needs of different stakeholders. The Committee 

encourages HUD to continue to maximize this authority. 

In addition, the Committee includes up to $40,000,000 for Department-wide technical assistance and critical research beyond 

the core studies, which will be funded through transfers of up to 

0.1 percent from HUD programs. In fiscal year 2015, $22,000,000 

was provided as a direct appropriation for technical assistance. 

The Committee directs that funds transferred into this account 

may only come from the following accounts: Choice Neighborhoods 

Initiative, Community Development Fund, Fair Housing Activities, 

Family Self-Sufficiency, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, 

Housing Counseling Assistance, Housing for Persons with Disabilities, Housing for the Elderly, Indian Block Grants, Lead Hazard 

Reduction, Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account, ProjectBased Rental Assistance, Public Housing Capital Fund, Public 

Housing Operating Fund, Rental Housing Assistance, Self-Help 

and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program, and TenantBased Rental Assistance. 

Within the amount transferred, at least $30,000,000 is for technical assistance [TA] across HUD programs. Of the amount for TA, 

at least $5,000,000 is to support TA in Indian Country including 

the inspection of Indian housing units, contract expertise, training, 
139 

and technical assistance in the training, oversight, and management of such Indian housing and tenant-based assistance. TA for 

Indian Country shall be provided by providers with experience and 

expertise in addressing the needs of Indian tribes. Of the overall 

amount for TA, at least $5,000,000 is for training public housing 

agencies on finance and governance. 

Funds transferred also provide funding for research to help improve program understanding and service delivery. Of the amount 

provided, the recommendation includes: at least $2,000,000 for 

grants to develop innovative approaches to the design and construction of affordable, accessible, and desirable housing for the 

disabled; $400,000 for an evaluation of Energy Performance Contracts in public housing; $800,000 for multidisciplinary research 

teams; $1,000,000 for tracking outcomes of the Jobs-Plus pilot program; $900,000 for an assessment of HUD’s technical assistance to 

program grantees; $500,000 for facilitating the adoption of new 

building technologies by small and medium builders; and $250,000 

to develop best practices and models to assist communities in developing pre-disaster mitigation plans and long term strategies. In 

addition, the Committee includes funding for the following projects: 

Evaluation of Programs Serving Homeless Youth.—Opening 

Doors: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness established a goal to end homelessness among children, family 

and youth by 2020. However, the data on youth that experience 

homelessness is extremely limited. HUD’s 2014 Point-in-Time 

Count, which the Department acknowledges is an undercount, 

identified 45,205 unaccompanied homeless children and youth (defined as single individuals, aged 24 or younger experiencing homelessness without a parent or guardian) experiencing homelessness 

on a single night in January 2014. Additionally, the evidence base 

for charting a path to end homelessness among youth is decidedly 

weaker than the evidence base for ending chronic homelessness or 

homelessness among veterans. The Framework to End Youth 

Homelessness, released in 2013, identifies the need to both better 

estimate the prevalence of youth homelessness and identify the 

array of housing and service interventions that would be needed to 

end homelessness among youth. This research will improve the understanding of which interventions work best for which types of 

youth to better align the available housing and services interventions with the youth who need them. The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for this study. 

Utility Allowance Comparison Study.—Utility service to a residence is an intrinsic element in the cost of shelter. HUD currently 

spends over $6,000,000,000 per year on utilities, which includes the 

reimbursement and subsidy of public or assisted housing utility 

costs. Some resident’s utility costs are paid directly by the public 

housing authority or assisted project owner, and HUD reimburses 

the payee. For tenants who pay the cost of their own utilities, public housing authorities or owners base the paid amount on an estimated utility allowance that is determined by the characteristics of 

the unit, the regional climate, and local tariffs. The current regulations on setting utility allowances have been in place for approximately 40 years, and give considerable discretion to the local agency or owner, and predate national household data on utility use by 
140 

region and structure type. A HUD model based on Department of 

Energy data for such estimates has been available to agencies and 

owners for some time, but HUD has not mandated its use, partly 

because the Department does not know what the budget implications of such a mandate would be. The Committee directs the Department to add a component to the existing Quality Control study 

(previously funded for measurement of improper payments with a 

representative national sample of assisted tenants) that will compare the costs of the current system of utility allowances, costs 

under mandated use of the HUD model, and a model based on actual payments by assisted tenants. The Committee includes 

$725,000 for this study. 

HUD shall include details on its allocation of these resources in 

its operating plan. 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $65,300,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 71,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 65,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 65,300,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding for 

both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the Fair 

Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP]. 

The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local 

agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as 

amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage services. The 

major objective of the program is to assure prompt and effective 

processing of title VIII complaints with appropriate remedies for 

complaints by State and local fair housing agencies. 

The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by section 

561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, as 

amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair housing opportunities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $65,300,000 for 

the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity [OFHEO]. This 

amount is $5,700,000 less than the budget request and equal to the 

2015 enacted level. Of the amounts provided, $23,300,000 is for 

FHAP, $40,100,000 is for FHIP, and $300,000 is for the creation, 

promotion, and dissemination of translated materials that support 

the assistance of persons with limited English proficiency. The 

Committee also provides $1,600,000 for the National Fair Housing 

Training Academy, and encourages the Department to pursue ways 

to make the Academy self-sustaining. 
141 

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL AND HEALTHY HOMES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $110,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 120,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 75,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 110,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 

established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction 

Act, under which HUD is authorized to make grants to States, localities, and Native American tribes to conduct lead-based paint 

hazard reduction and abatement activities in private, low-income 

housing. Lead poisoning is a significant environmental health hazard, particularly for young children and pregnant women, and can 

result in neurological damage, learning disabilities, and impaired 

growth. The Healthy Homes Program, authorized under sections 

501 and 502 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 

(12 U.S.C. 1701z–1 and 1701z–2), provides grants to remediate 

housing hazards that have been scientifically shown to negatively 

impact occupant health and safety. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $110,00,000 for 

lead-based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2016, of which $25,000,000 is for the Healthy Homes Initiative. Of this amount, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $45,000,000 for the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, which 

was established in fiscal year 2003 to focus on major urban areas 

where children are disproportionately at risk for lead poisoning. 

This amount is $10,000,000 less than the President’s budget request and equal to the amount available in fiscal year 2015. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $250,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 334,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 97,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 250,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Information Technology Fund finances the information technology [IT] systems that support departmental programs and operations, including FHA Mortgage Insurance, housing assistance and 

grant programs, as well as core financial and general operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $250,000,000 for 

the Information Technology Fund for fiscal year 2016, which is 

$84,000,000 less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal 

year 2015 enacted level. 

The Committee has been very supportive of HUD’s efforts to 

modernize its IT systems, which are critical to effectively overseeing its programs. For years, HUD has been hampered by outdated IT systems that aren’t integrated, which limit its ability to 
142 

manage and oversee grantees. In addition, HUD’s efforts to work 

around system limitations to collect information for oversight purposes often results in increased work for grantees who have to 

input information into multiple systems. The Committee recognizes 

HUD’s effort to better integrate systems, but there is still more 

work to be done, and IT system integration should remain a top 

priority for the Department. 

The Committee recognizes that development of more sophisticated systems may come with higher costs associated with the additional capabilities HUD is getting. At the same time, HUD must 

also achieve savings by eliminating legacy systems and old servers. 

The Committee directs HUD to be more diligent in identifying and 

achieving savings by retiring old systems and shutting off redundant and inefficient servers. In addition, the Committee urges 

HUD to continue to look for savings when it renews contracts to 

reduce the ongoing costs of operating and maintaining its IT systems. The Committee notes that the Department has yet to submit 

reports, as directed by the Committee last year, articulating how 

the Department is implementing GAO’s IT-related recommendations, and identifying savings it will achieve by retiring legacy systems and shutting off old servers. The Committee directs the Chief 

Operating Officer and the Chief Information Officer to ensure reports are submitted in a timely manner and include all required information. 

The Committee is also concerned about the development of IT 

systems outside of the Information Technology Fund. While the 

Committee understands that limited resources may prompt HUD 

offices to develop solutions with their own resources, the Committee expects that, at a minimum, OCIO will monitor and oversee 

the development of any such solutions. The Committee directs the 

OCIO to monitor the development of new system solutions by every 

office in HUD to make sure they conform to HUD’s enterprise architecture, and will be compatible with systems under development. 

GAO Oversight.—Since 2010, the Committee has required HUD 

to submit an expenditure plan outlining its IT modernization 

projects before it could spend a portion of its IT funding. The plans 

were reviewed by GAO to determine if they satisfied the statutory 

requirements. Based on reports and briefings from GAO over the 

past few years, the Committee recognizes the progress HUD has 

made in its IT modernization planning efforts, and the focus must 

now be on its implementation of the plans and execution of the 

projects. The Committee emphasizes the importance of pursuing a 

strategic approach as HUD continues to improve its IT management. To this end, in order to monitor the Department’s progress, 

the Committee instructed GAO in 2012 to conduct several reviews. 

In 2013, GAO completed a review of the Department’s IT project 

management practices. The Committee reaffirms its direction to 

GAO to also evaluate HUD’s institutionalization of governance and 

cost estimating practices. In particular, the Committee remains interested in any cost savings or operational efficiencies that have resulted (or may result) from the Department’s improvement efforts. 

The Committee appreciates the work that GAO has done in this 

area and believes it has benefited the Committee and the Depart-
143 

ment. The Committee encourages HUD to take advantage of GAO 

expertise as it makes further improvements to its IT structure and 

governance. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $126,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 129,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 126,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 126,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation will finance all salaries and related expenses 

associated with the operation of the Office of the Inspector General 

[OIG]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $126,000,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. The amount of funding is 

equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and $3,000,000 below 

the budget request. 

The Committee is disappointed that it is compelled to remind the 

Inspector General of directions and reporting requirements included in the fiscal year 2015 report. Specifically, the OIG is reminded of the requirement to submit to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations a spending plan detailing its intended information technology acquisitions in fiscal year 2015 and 

the requirement to report to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations identifying the OIG’s current information technology structure, systems and baseline costs, as well as its information technology strategy for fiscal year 2015 and future fiscal years. 

The Committee includes these same requirements and deadlines 

again for fiscal year 2016. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

The Committee recommends administrative provisions. A brief 

description follows. 

SEC. 201. This section promotes the refinancing of certain housing bonds. 

SEC. 202. This section clarifies a limitation on the use of funds 

under the Fair Housing Act. 

SEC. 203. This section 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. 
144 

SEC. 208. This section requires quarterly reports on all uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD programs. 

SEC. 209. 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 2016. Instead, the public housing agencies in these States are required to establish advisory boards that include public housing tenants and section 8 recipients. 

SEC. 210. This section exempts GNMA from certain requirements 

of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. 

SEC. 211. 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. 212. This section reforms certain section 8 rent calculations 

as related to athletic scholarships. 

SEC. 213. This section provides allocation requirements for Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block 

Grant program. 

SEC. 214. This section eliminates a cap on Home Equity Conversion Mortgages for fiscal year 2016. 

SEC. 215. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8 assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing. 

SEC. 216. This section clarifies the use of the 108 loan guaranteed program for nonentitlement communities. 

SEC. 217. This section allows public housing authorities with less 

than 400 units to be exempt from management requirements in the 

operating fund rule. 

SEC. 218. This section restricts the Secretary from imposing any 

requirement or guideline relating to asset management that restricts or limits the use of capital funds for central office costs, up 

to the limit established in QWHRA. 

SEC. 219. This section requires allotment holders to meet certain 

criteria of the CFO. 

SEC. 220. The section modifies the NOFA process to include the 

Internet. 

SEC. 221. This section limits attorney fees. 

SEC. 222. This section establishes reprogramming and reallocation requirements within HUD’s salaries and expenses accounts. 

SEC. 223. This section allows the Disaster Housing Assistance 

Programs to be considered HUD programs for the purpose of income verification and matching. 

SEC. 224. This section requires HUD to take certain actions 

against owners receiving rental subsidies that do not maintain safe 

properties. 

SEC. 225. This section places limits on PHA compensation. 

SEC. 226. This section prohibits funds from being used for the 

doctoral dissertation research grant program. 

SEC. 227. This section extends the HOPE VI program until September 30, 2016. 

SEC. 228. This section requires the Secretary to provide the Committee with advance notification before discretionary awards are 

made. 
145 

SEC. 229. This section allows the Secretary to transfer funding 

from salaries and expenses accounts to the ‘‘Information Technology Fund’’ to support technology improvements. 

SEC. 230. This section prohibits funds being used to implement 

the HAWK program. 

SEC. 231. This section prohibits funds for HUD financing of mortgages for properties that have been subject to eminent domain. 

SEC. 232. This section prohibits funds from being used to terminate the status of a unit of local government as a metropolitan city, 

as defined under section 102 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, with respect to grants under section 106 of 

such act. 

SEC. 233. This section makes changes to the HOME Investment 

Partnerships program. 

SEC. 234. This section prohibits funds being used to pay bonuses 

for suspended employees. 

SEC. 235. This section modifies the Rental Assistance Demonstration included in the fiscal year 2012 bill. 

SEC. 236. This section allows PHAs to establish replacement reserves to address capital needs. 

SEC. 237. This section increases the flexibility of public housing 

authorities to transfer funds between their capital and operating 

funds. 

SEC. 238. This section amends section 526 of the National Housing Act to permits exceptions for alternative water systems that 

meet requirements of State and local building codes that ensure 

health and safety standards. 

SEC. 239. This section expands the number of PHAs that may 

participate in the Moving-to-Work program. 

SEC. 240. This section permits triennial re-certification of fixedincome families. 

SEC. 241. This section extends the period of use of family unification vouchers by youth. 

SEC. 242. This section permits performance-based financing of 

energy and water conservation improvements in assisted multifamily housing to reduce utility costs. 

SEC. 243. This section incentivizes measures to reduce energy 

and water consumption in public housing. 

SEC. 244. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer of 

existing subsidies and liabilities from obsolete housing for persons 

with disabilities to housing that complies with local Olmstead requirements. 

SEC. 245. This section rescinds balances from various HUD programs. 

SEC. 246. This section permits HUD to participate in the multiagency Performance Partnership Pilots program. 

SEC. 247. This section permits HUD to consolidate funds used to 

implement disaster recovery grants. 

Section 248. This section prohibits HUD from requiring public 

housing agencies with less than 250 public housing units to conduct a Green Physical Needs Assessment. 
(146) 

TITLE III 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

ACCESS BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $7,548,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 8,023,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 7,548,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,023,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Access Board (formerly known as the Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance Board) was established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board is responsible for developing guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Architectural Barriers Act, and the Telecommunications Act. These guidelines ensure that buildings and facilities, 

transportation vehicles, and telecommunications equipment covered 

by these laws are readily accessible to and usable by people with 

disabilities. The Board is also responsible for developing standards 

under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act for accessible electronic 

and information technology used by Federal agencies, and for medical diagnostic equipment under section 510 of the Rehabilitation 

Act. The Access Board also enforces the Architectural Barriers Act, 

ensuring accessibility to a wide range of Federal agencies, including national parks, post offices, social security offices, and prisons. 

In addition, the Board provides training and technical assistance 

on the guidelines and standards it develops to Government agencies, public and private organizations, individuals and businesses 

on the removal of accessibility barriers. 

In 2002, the Access Board was given additional responsibilities 

under the Help America Vote Act. The Board serves on the Board 

of Advisors and the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, 

which helps the Election Assistance Commission develop voluntary 

guidelines and guidance for voting systems, including accessibility 

for people with disabilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $8,023,000 for the operations of the 

Access Board. This level of funding is $475,000 more than the 2015 

enacted level and equal to the President’s fiscal year 2016 request. 
147 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $25,660,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 27,387,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 25,660,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,660,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is an independent regulatory agency which administers the Shipping Act of 1984 (Public 

Law 98–237), as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 

1998 (Public Law 105–258); section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act 

of 1920 (41 Stat. 998); the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 

(Public Law 100–418); and Public Law 89–777. 

FMC’s mission is to foster a fair, efficient, and reliable international ocean transportation system and to protect the public from 

unfair and deceptive practices. To accomplish this mission, FMC 

regulates the international waterborne commerce of the United 

States. In addition, FMC has responsibility for licensing and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and assuring that vessel 

owners or operators establish financial responsibility to pay judgments for death or injury to passengers, or nonperformance of a 

cruise, on voyages from U.S. ports. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,660,000 for the salaries and expenses of the FMC for fiscal year 2016. This amount is $1,727,000 

less than the President’s fiscal year 2016 budget request and equal 

to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

The Committee commends FMC’s efforts to promote access to foreign markets for American exports and efficient supply chains for 

the importation of goods for domestic production and consumption, 

pursuits that support economic growth and job creation. The Committee also supports FMC’s continued efforts to protect consumers 

from potentially unlawful, unfair, or deceptive ocean transportation 

practices related to the movement of household goods or personal 

property in international oceanborne trade. 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $23,999,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 24,499,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 24,499,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 23,999,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Inspector General for Amtrak was created by the 

Inspector General Act Amendment of 1988. The act recognized Amtrak as a ‘‘designated Federal entity’’ and required the railroad to 

establish an independent and objective unit to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and oper-
148 

ations of Amtrak; recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in Amtrak, and prevent and detect fraud and abuse; and to provide a means for keeping the Amtrak leadership and the Congress fully informed about problems in 

Amtrak operations and the corporation’s progress in making corrective action. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $23,999,000 for the Amtrak Office of 

Inspector General [OIG]. This funding level is $500,000 less than 

the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 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. 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $103,981,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 105,170,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 103,981,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 105,170,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Initially established along with the Department of Transportation, the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent Federal 

agency. The Board is charged by Congress with investigating every 

civil aviation accident in the United States as well as significant 

accidents in the other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, 

marine, and pipeline—and issuing safety recommendations aimed 

at preventing future accidents. Although it has always operated 

independently, NTSB relied on DOT for funding and administrative support until the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Public 

Law 93–633) severed all ties between the two organizations starting in 1975. 

In addition to its investigatory duties, NTSB is responsible for 

maintaining the Government’s database of civil aviation accidents 

and also conducts special studies of transportation safety issues of 

national significance. Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international treaties, NTSB supplies investigators to serve 

as U.S. accredited representatives for aviation accidents overseas 

involving U.S.-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or major 

components of U.S. manufacture. NTSB also serves as the ‘‘court 

of appeals’’ for any airman, mechanic, or mariner whenever certificate action is taken by the Federal Aviation Administration or the 

U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are assessed by FAA. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $105,170,000 for the National 

Transportation Safety Board, which is equal to the budget request 

and $1,189,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The 

Committee has also continued to include language that allows 
149 

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, 2015 ............................................................................. $185,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 182,300,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 177,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 140,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by the 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public Law 

95–557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation now operates under the trade name, ‘‘NeighborWorks America.’’ NeighborWorks America helps local communities establish efficient and effective partnerships between residents and representatives of the public and private sectors. These partnership-based 

organizations are independent, tax-exempt, nonprofit entities and 

are frequently known as Neighborhood Housing Services 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 $140,000,000 for 

NeighborWorks for fiscal year 2016. This amount is $42,300,000 

less than the budget request and $45,000,000 less than the fiscal 

year 2015 enacted level. The Committee has included funding solely to support NeighborWorks core programs, and continues to support the set-aside of $5,000,000 for the multifamily rental housing 

initiative, which has been successful in developing innovative approaches to producing mixed-income affordable housing throughout 

the Nation. Funding for core programs is $3,400,000 more than the 

budget request and $5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program (NFMC).— 

The Committee has not included any funding for this program. The 

Committee has been clear that NFMC, initially provided ‘‘one-time 

funding’’ in fiscal year 2008, is not a permanent program. By not 

providing additional funding for NFMC, NeighborWorks will be 

able to utilize the $4,000,000 provided in fiscal year 2015 to begin 

program wind down and close out operations. 

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 
150 

scams. The Committee expects NeighborWorks to continue working 

with its partners to address this important issue. 

Rural Areas.—The Committee continues to support 

Neighborworks’ efforts to build capacity in rural areas. The Committee urges the Corporation to continue these efforts. 

UNITED STATES INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $3,530,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 3,530,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,530,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,530,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is an 

independent agency created by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 to coordinate and direct the multiple efforts of 

Federal agencies and other designated groups. The Council was authorized to review Federal programs that assist homeless persons 

and to take necessary actions to reduce duplication. The Council 

can recommend improvements in programs and activities conducted by Federal, State, and local government, as well as local 

volunteer organizations. The Council consists of the heads of 19 

Federal agencies, including the Departments of Housing and Urban 

Development, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Labor, and Transportation; 

and other entities as deemed appropriate. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,530,000 for 

the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [USICH]. 

This amount is equal to the budget request and the fiscal year 

2015 enacted level. The Committee does not include changes to 

USICH’s underlying authorization as included in the budget request. 

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 is aware that individuals who are 

homeless or in unstable housing situations are often living with 

multiple chronic conditions. The link between homelessness and 

long-term physical and behavioral health conditions is well documented. The Committee has recognized the cost-savings that can 

be achieved by using evidence-based practices, and has been supportive of such efforts, including through the HUD–VASH program 

and other permanent supportive housing through HUD’s homeless 

assistance grants program. However, the Committee believes that 

more can be done to emphasize evidence-based practices in serving 

other populations. The Committee directs the USICH to continue 
151 

to work to improve coordination between HUD, HHS and other 

Federal agencies, and to help communities use the Homeless Management Information System and other data to target affordable 

housing and homeless resources to high-need, high-cost families 

and individuals. The Committee further encourages HUD to work 

with HHS and other Federal agencies to identify homeless individuals who have high utilization rates for emergency and other public 

services, and share strategies for combining affordable housing 

with health and social support services to improve both housing 

and health outcomes for these individuals. 

Homeless Youth.—One of the goals of the Federal Strategic Plan 

is to prevent and end homelessness among youth by 2020. The plan 

identifies four core targeted outcomes for youth experiencing homelessness—stable housing, permanent connections, education and 

employment, and social/emotional well-being. These outcomes appropriately identify the multiple needs of youth experiencing homelessness and underscore the importance of comprehensive solutions. To be successful, it is critical to coordinate Federal services 

and programs at the local, regional, and State levels to ensure 

these outcomes are met. 

The Committee notes that USICH has a working group on ending youth homelessness and has made improving data on youth 

homelessness and building capacity for service delivery priorities. 

The Committee supports these efforts and urges USICH to continue to facilitate coordination among the appropriate agencies, including the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Health and Human Services, to ensure the homeless 

services comprehensively address the needs of homeless youth. 
(152) 

TITLE IV 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS ACT 

Section 401 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-Federal 

parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this act. 

Section 402 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal year 

and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so provided herein. 

Section 403 limits expenditures for consulting service through 

procurement contracts where such expenditures are a matter of 

public record and available for public inspection. 

Section 404 prohibits the use of funds for employee training unless such training bears directly upon the performance of official 

duties. 

Section 405 authorizes the reprogramming of funds within a 

budget account and specifies the reprogramming procedures for 

agencies funded by this act. The Committee rejects the Administration’s request to transfer budget authority between accounts. 

Section 406 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances may 

remain available for certain purposes. 

Section 407 prohibits the use of funds for eminent domain unless 

such taking is employed for public use. 

Section 408 requires departments and agencies under this act to 

report information regarding all sole-source contracts. 

Section 409 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred without 

express authority. 

Section 410 protects employment rights of Federal employees 

who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the Armed 

Forces. 

Section 411 prohibits the use of funds for activities not in compliance with the Buy American Act. 

Section 412 prohibits funding for any person or entity convicted 

of violating the Buy American Act. 

Section 413 prohibits funds for first-class airline accommodation 

in contravention of section 301–10.122 and 301–10.123 of title 41 

CFR. 

Section 414 prohibits funds from being used for the approval of 

a new foreign air carrier permit or exemption application if that 

approval would contravene United States law or article 17 bis of 

the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-Norway Air Transport Agreement and specifies that nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict, or preclude 

the Secretary of DOT from granting a permit or exemption where 

such authorization is consistent with the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-Norway 

Air Transport Treaty and the U.S. law. 

Section 415 restricts the number of employees agencies funded in 

this act may send to international conferences. 
(153) 

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 2016: 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Infrastructure Investments 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Federal Highway Administration 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Federal Transit Administration 

Maritime Administration 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Surface Transportation Board 

National Infrastructure Investments 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Rental Assistance Programs 

Native American Housing Block Grants 

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund 

Housing Opportunity for Persons with AIDS 

Community Development Fund 

Community Development Loan Guarantee 

Home Investment Partnerships Program 

Choice Neighborhoods Initiatives 

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program 

Homeless Assistance 

Housing for the Elderly 

Housing for Persons with Disabilities 

FHA General and Special Risk Program Account: 

GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program Account: 

Policy Development and Research 

Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Program 

Lead Hazard Reduction Program 
154 

Salaries and Expenses 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES

Access Board 

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 25, 2015, the 

Committee ordered favorably reported a bill (H.R. 2577) making 

appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing 

and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, provided, that 

the bill be subject to further amendment and that the bill be consistent with its budget allocation, by a recorded vote of 20–10, a 

quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Cochran Mr. Leahy 

Mr. McConnell Mrs. Murray 

Mr. Shelby Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Alexander Mr. Reed 

Ms. Collins Mr. Tester 

Ms. Murkowski Mr. Udall 

Mr. Graham Mrs. Shaheen 

Mr. Kirk Mr. Merkley 

Mr. Blunt Mr. Coons 

Mr. Moran Mr. Murphy 

Mr. Hoeven 

Mr. Boozman 

Mrs. Capito 

Mr. Cassidy 

Mr. Lankford 

Mr. Daines 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Schatz 

Ms. Baldwin 

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.’’ 
155 

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 V—MISCELLANEOUS

§ 1735f–4. Minimum property standards 

(a) * * * 

(b) The Secretary may require that each property, other than 

a manufactured home, subject to a mortgage insured under this 

chapter shall, with respect to health and safety, comply with one 

of the nationally recognized model building codes, or with a State 

or local building code based on one of the nationally recognized 

model building codes or their equivalent. The Secretary shall be responsible for determining the comparability of the State and local 

codes to such model codes and for selecting for compliance purposes 

an appropriate nationally recognized model building code where no 

such model code has been duly adopted or where the Secretary determines the adopted code is not comparable. 

(c) The Secretary may establish an exception to any minimum 

property standard established under this section in order to address 

alternative water systems, including cisterns, which meet requirements of State and local building codes that ensure health and safety standards. 

TITLE 23—HIGHWAYS 

CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

§ 127. Vehicle weight limitations-Interstate System 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

* * * * * * * 

(l) OPERATION OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN KENTUCKY HIGHWAYS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—* * * 

(2) DESCRIPTION OF HIGHWAY SEGMENTS.—The highway 

segments referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows: 

(A) Interstate Route 69 in Kentucky (formerly the 

Wendell H. Ford (Western Kentucky) Parkway) from the 

Interstate Route 24 Interchange, near Eddyville, to the 

Edward T. Breathitt (Pennyrile) Parkway Interchange. 

(B) The Edward T. Breathitt (Pennyrile) Parkway (to 

be designated as Interstate Route 69) in Kentucky from 

the Wendell H. Ford (Western Kentucky) Parkway Interchange to near milepost 77, and on new alignment to an 
156 

interchange on the Audubon Parkway, if the segment is 

designated as part of the Interstate System. 

(m) OPERATION OF CERTAIN SPECIALIZED HAULING VEHICLES

ON CERTAIN TEXAS HIGHWAYS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—If any segment of United States Route 59, 

United States Route 77, United States Route 281, United States 

Route 84, or routes otherwise made eligible for designation as 

Interstate Route 69, is designated as Interstate Route 69, a vehicle that could operate legally on that segment before the date of 

such designation may continue to operate on that segment, 

without regard to any requirement under subsection (a). 

(2) DESCRIPTION OF HIGHWAY SEGMENTS.—The highway 

segments referred to in paragraph (1) are any segment of 

United States Route 59, United States Route 77, United States 

Route 281, United States Route 84, and routes otherwise made 

eligible for designation as Interstate Route 69 in Texas. 

(n) OPERATION OF CERTAIN SPECIALIZED VEHICLES ON CERTAIN

HIGHWAYS IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.—If any segment of United 

States Route 63 between the exits for Arkansas Highway 14 and Arkansas Highway 75 is designated as part of the Interstate System— 

(1) a vehicle that could legally operate on the segment before the date of such designation at the posted speed limit may 

continue to operate on that segment; and 

(2) a vehicle that can only travel slower than the posted 

speed limit on the segment and could otherwise legally operate 

on the segment before the date of such designation may continue to operate on that segment during daylight hours. 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 8—LOW-INCOME HOUSING

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROGRAM AND ASSISTED HOUSING

§ 1437a. Rental payments 

(a) Families included; rent options; minimum amount; occupancy by police officers and over-income families 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(5) OCCUPANCY BY OVER-INCOME FAMILIES IN CERTAIN PUB- LIC HOUSING.— 

(A) AUTHORITY.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this paragraph, the 

term ‘‘over-income family’’ means an individual or family 

that is not a low-income family at the time of initial occupancy. 

(6) REVIEWS OF FAMILY INCOME.— 

(A) FREQUENCY.—Reviews of family income for purposes of this section shall be made— 
157 

(i) in the case of all families, upon the initial provision of housing assistance16 for the family; and 

(ii) no less than annually thereafter, except as provided in subparagraph (B)(i); 

(B) FIXED-INCOME FAMILIES.— 

(i) SELF CERTIFICATION AND 3-YEAR REVIEW.—In 

the case of any family described in clause (ii), after the 

initial review of the family’s income pursuant to subparagraph (A)(i), the public housing agency or owner 

shall not be required to conduct a review of the family’s 

income pursuant to subparagraph (A)(ii) for any year 

for which such family certifies, in accordance with 

such requirements as the Secretary shall establish, that 

the income of the family meets the requirements of 

clause (ii) of this subparagraph and that the sources of 

such income have not changed since the previous year, 

except that the public housing agency or owner shall 

conduct a review of each such family’s income not less 

than once every 3 years. 

(ii) ELIGIBLE FAMILIES.—A family described in this 

clause is a family who has an income, as of the most 

recent review pursuant to subparagraph (A) or clause 

(i) of this subparagraph, of which 90 percent or more 

consists of fixed income, as such term is defined in 

clause (iii). 

(iii) FIXED INCOME.—For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ‘‘fixed income’’ includes income from— 

(I) the supplemental security income program 

under title XVI of the Social Security Act, including supplementary payments pursuant to an agreement for Federal administration under section 

1616(a) of the Social Security Act and payments 

pursuant to an agreement entered into under section 212(b) of Public Law 93–66; 

(II) Social Security payments; 

(III) Federal, State, local and private pension 

plans; and 

(IV) other periodic payments received from annuities, insurance policies, retirement funds, disability or death benefits, and other similar types of 

periodic receipts that are of substantially the same 

amounts from year to year. 

(C) INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT FOR FIXED INCOME

FAMILIES.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—In any year in which a public 

housing agency or owner does not conduct a review of 

income for any family described in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) pursuant to the authority under clause 

(i) of such paragraph to waive such a review, such 

family’s prior year’s income determination shall, subject to clauses (ii) and (iii), be adjusted by applying an 
158 

inflationary factor as the Secretary shall, by regulation 

or notice, establish. 

(ii) EXEMPTION FROM ADJUSTMENT.—A public 

housing agency or owner may exempt from an adjustment pursuant to clause (i) any income source for 

which income does not increase from year to year. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1437f. Low-income housing assistance 

(a) Authorization for assistance payments 

* * * * * * * 

(x) Family unification 

(1) Increase in budget authority 

* * * * * * * 

(2) Use of funds 

The amounts made available under this subsection shall be 

used only in connection with tenant-based assistance under this 

section on behalf of (A) any family (i) who is otherwise eligible for 

such assistance, and (ii) who the public child welfare agency for the 

jurisdiction has certified is a family for whom the lack of adequate 

housing is a primary factor in the imminent placement of the family’s child or children in out-of-home care or the delayed discharge 

of a child or children to the family from out-of-home care and (B) 

for a period not to exceed ø18 months¿ 36 months, otherwise eligible youths who have attained at least 18 years of age and not more 

than 21 years of age and who have left foster care at age 16 or 

older. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1437g. Public housing Capital and Operating Funds 

(a) Merger into Capital Fund 

* * * * * * * 

(g) Limitations on use of funds 

(1) Flexibility for Capital Fund amounts 

(A) Of any amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2000 or any 

fiscal year thereafter that are allocated for fiscal year 2000 or any 

fiscal year thereafter from the Capital Fund for any public housing 

agency, the agency may use not more than 20 percent for activities 

that are eligible under subsection (e) of this section for assistance 

with amounts from the Operating Fund, but only if the public 

housing agency plan for the agency provides for such useø.¿ ; and 

(B) FLEXIBILITY FOR OPERATING FUND AMOUNTS.—Of any 

amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2016 or any fiscal year thereafter that are allocated for fiscal year 2016 or any fiscal year thereafter from the Operating Fund for any public housing agency, the 

agency may use not more than 20 percent for activities that are eligible under subsection (d) for assistance with amounts from the 
159 

Capital Fund, but only if the public housing plan for the agency 

provides for such use. 

* * * * * * * 

(j) Penalty for slow expenditure of capital funds 

(1) Obligation of amounts 

* * * * * * * 

(6) Right of recapture 

Any obligation entered into by a public housing agency shall be 

subject to the right of the Secretary to recapture the obligated 

amounts for violation by the public housing agency of the requirements of this subsection. 

(7) TREATMENT OF REPLACEMENT RESERVE.—The requirements 

of this subsection shall not apply to funds held in replacement reserves established in subsection (9)(n). 

* * * * * * * 

(m) Treatment of public housing 

(1) [Repealed. Pub. L. 108–7, div. K, title II, §212(a), Feb. 20, 

2003, 117 Stat. 503]. 

* * * * * * * 

(4) Effective date 

This subsection shall apply to fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal 

year thereafter. 

(n) ESTABLISHMENT OF REPLACEMENT RESERVES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Public Housing authorities shall be permitted to establish a Replacement Reserve to fund any of the 

capital activities listed in subparagraph (d)(1). 

(2) SOURCE AND AMOUNT OF FUNDS FOR REPLACEMENT RESERVE.—At any time, a public housing authority may deposit 

funds from that agency’s Capital Fund into a replacement reserve subject to the following: 

(A) At the discretion of the Secretary, public housing 

agencies may transfer and hold in a Replacement Reserve, 

funds originating from additional sources. 

(B) No minimum transfer of funds to a replacement reserve shall be required. 

(C) At any time, a public housing authority may not 

hold in a replacement reserve more than the amount the 

public housing authority has determined necessary to satisfy the anticipated capital needs of properties in its portfolio assisted under 42 U.S.C. 1437g as outlined in its Capital Fund 5 Year Action Plan, or a comparable plan, as determined by the Secretary. 

(D) The Secretary may establish by regulation a maximum replacement reserve level or levels that are below 

amounts determined under subparagraph (C), which may 

be based upon the size of the portfolio assisted under 42 

U.S.C. 1437g or other factors. 
160 

(3) In first establishing a replacement reserve, the Secretary 

may allow public housing agencies to transfer more than 20 

percent of its operating funds into its replacement reserve. 

(4) EXPENDITURE.—Funds in a replacement reserve may be 

used for purposes authorized by subparagraph (d)(1) and contained in its Capital Fund 5 Year Action Plan. 

(5) MANAGEMENT AND REPORT.—The Secretary shall establish appropriate accounting and reporting requirements to ensure that public housing agencies are spending funds on eligible 

projects and that funds in the replacement reserve are connected 

to capital needs. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1437v. Demolition, site revitalization, replacement housing, 

and tenant-based assistance grants for projects 

(a) Purposes 

* * * * * * * 

(m) Funding 

(1) Authorization of appropriations 

There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under this section $574,000,000 for øfiscal year 2015.¿ fiscal year 2016. 

* * * * * * * 

(o) Sunset 

No assistance may be provided under this section after øSeptember 30, 2015.¿ September 30, 2016. 

* * * * * * * 

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 

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. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 130—NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SUBCHAPTER II—INVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PART A—HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS

§ 12755. Tenant and participant protections 

(a) Lease 

* * * * * * * 
161 

(b) Termination of tenancy 

An owner shall not terminate the tenancy or refuse to renew 

the lease of a tenant of rental housing assisted under this subchapter except for serious or repeated violation of the terms and 

conditions of the lease, for violation of applicable Federal, State, or 

local law, or for other good cause. Any termination or refusal to 

renew must be preceded by not less than 30 days by the owner’s 

service upon the tenant of a written notice specifying the grounds 

for the action. Such 30-day waiting period is not required if the 

grounds for the termination or refusal to renew involve a direct 

threat to the safety of the tenants or employees of the housing, or 

an imminent and serious threat to the property (and the termination or refusal to renew is in accordance with the requirements 

of State or local law). 

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION 

SUBTITLE IV—INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION 

PART B—MOTOR CARRIERS, WATER CARRIERS, BROKERS, AND

FREIGHT FORWARDERS

CHAPTER 135—JURISDICTION

SUBCHAPTER I—MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION

§ 13506. Miscellaneous motor carrier transportation exemptions 

(a) IN GENERAL.—* * * 

(1) a motor vehicle transporting only school children and 

teachers to or from school; 

* * * * * * * 

(14) brokers for motor carriers of passengers, except as 

provided in section 13904(d); øor¿ 

(15) transportation of broken, crushed, or powdered 

glassø.¿ ; or 

(16) the transportation of passengers by motor vehicles operated by youth or family camps that provide overnight accommodations and recreational or educational activities at fixed locations. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE VI—MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS 

PART B—COMMERCIAL

CHAPTER 311—COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY

SUBCHAPTER II—LENGTH AND WIDTH LIMITATIONS

§ 31111. Length limitations 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 
162 

(b) GENERAL LIMITATIONS.—(1) Except as provided in this section, a State may not prescribe or enforce a regulation of commerce 

that— 

(A) imposes a vehicle length limitation of less than 45 feet 

on a bus, of less than 48 feet on a semitrailer operating in a 

truck tractor-semitrailer combination, øor of less than 28 feet 

on a semitrailer or trailer operating in a truck tractorsemitrailer-trailer combination,¿ or, notwithstanding section 

31112, of less than 33 feet on a semitrailer or trailer operating 

in a truck tractor semitrailer-trailer combination, on any segment of the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and 

Defense Highways (except a segment exempted under subsection (f) of this section) and those classes of qualifying Federal-aid Primary System highways designated by the Secretary 

of Transportation under subsection (e) of this section; 

* * * * * * * 

§ 31112. Property-carrying unit limitation 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) øSPECIAL RULES FOR WYOMING, OHIO, ALASKA, IOWA, AND

NEBRASKA¿ SPECIAL RULES FOR WYOMING, OHIO, ALASKA, IOWA, 

NEBRASKA, AND KANSAS.—* * * 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) Alaska may allow the operation of commercial motor 

vehicle combinations that were not in actual operation on June 

1, 1991, but were in actual operation before July 6, 1991ø; 

and¿ ; 

(4) Iowa may allow the operation on Interstate Route 29 

between Sioux City, Iowa, and the border between Iowa and 

South Dakota or on Interstate Route 129 between Sioux City, 

Iowa, and the border between Iowa and Nebraska of commercial motor vehicle combinations with trailer length, semitrailer 

length, and property-carrying unit length allowed by law or 

regulation and in actual lawful operation on a regular or periodic basis (including continued seasonal operation) in South 

Dakota or Nebraska, respectively, before June 2, 1991ø.¿ ; and 

(5) øNebraska may¿ Nebraska and Kansas may allow the 

operation of a truck tractor and 2 trailers or semitrailers not 

in actual lawful operation on a regular or periodic basis on 

June 1, 1991, if the length of the property-carrying units does 

not exceed 81 feet 6 inches and such combination is used only 

to transport equipment utilized by custom harvesters under 

contract to agricultural producers to harvest one or more of 

wheat, soybeans, and milo during the harvest months for such 

crops, as defined by øthe State of Nebraska¿ the relevant state. 
163 

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, to properties with assistance under a project-based subsidy 

contract under section 8 of the Act, which shall be eligible for renewal under section 524 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997, or assistance under section 

8(o)(13) of the Act, the Secretary may transfer amounts provided 

through contracts under section 8(e)(2) of the Act or under the 

headings ‘‘Public Housing Capital Fund’’ and ‘‘Public Housing Operating Fund’’ to the headings ‘‘Tenant-Based Rental Assistance’’ or 

‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’: Provided, That the initial longterm 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, 2018: Provided further, That any increase in cost for ‘‘Tenant-Based Rental Assistance’’ or ‘‘ProjectBased 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 ø185,000¿ 

200,000 units currently receiving assistance under section 9 or section 8(e)(2) of the Act shall be converted under the authority provided under this heading: Provided further, That tenants of such 

properties with assistance converted from assistance under section 

9 shall, at a minimum, maintain the same rights under such conversion as those provided under sections 6 and 9 of the Act: Provided further, That the Secretary shall select properties from applications for conversion as part of this demonstration through a competitive process: Provided further, That in establishing criteria for 

such competition, the Secretary shall seek to demonstrate the feasibility of this conversion model to recapitalize and operate public 

housing properties (1) in different markets and geographic areas, 

(2) within portfolios managed by public housing agencies of varying 

sizes, and (3) by leveraging other sources of funding to recapitalize 

properties: Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide an 

opportunity for public comment on draft eligibility and selection 

criteria and procedures that will apply to the selection of properties 
164 

that will participate in the demonstration: Provided further, That 

the Secretary shall provide an opportunity for comment from residents of properties to be proposed for participation in the demonstration to the owners or public housing agencies responsible for 

such properties: Provided further, That the Secretary may waive or 

specify alternative requirements for (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the 

environment) any provision of section 8(o)(13) or any provision that 

governs the use of assistance from which a property is converted 

under the demonstration or funds made available under the headings of ‘‘Public Housing Capital Fund’’, ‘‘Public Housing Operating 

Fund’’, and ‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’, under this Act or 

any prior Act or any Act enacted during the period of conversion 

of assistance under the demonstration for properties with assistance converted under the demonstration, upon a finding by the 

Secretary that any such waivers or alternative requirements are 

necessary for the effective conversion of assistance under the demonstration: Provided further, That the Secretary shall publish by 

notice in the Federal Register any waivers or alternative requirements pursuant to the previous proviso no later than 10 days before the effective date of such notice: Provided further, That the 

demonstration may proceed after the Secretary publishes notice of 

its terms in the Federal Register: Provided further, That notwithstanding sections 3 and 16 of the Act, the conversion of assistance 

under the demonstration shall not be the basis for re-screening or 

termination of assistance or eviction of any tenant family in a property participating in the demonstration, and such a family shall not 

be considered a new admission for any purpose, including compliance with income targeting requirements: Provided further, That in 

the case of a property with assistance converted under the demonstration from assistance under section 9 of the Act, section 18 of 

the Act shall not apply to a property converting assistance under 

the demonstration for all or substantially all of its units, the Secretary shall require ownership or control of assisted units by a public or nonprofit entity except as determined by the Secretary to be 

necessary pursuant to foreclosure, bankruptcy, or termination and 

transfer of assistance for material violations or substantial default, 

in which case the priority for ownership or control shall be provided to a capable public entity, then a capable entity, as determined by the Secretary, shall require long-term renewable use and 

affordability restrictions for assisted units, and may allow ownership to be transferred to a for-profit entity to facilitate the use of 

tax credits only if the public housing agency preserves its interest 

in the property in a manner approved by the Secretary, and upon 

expiration of the initial contract and each renewal contract, the 

Secretary shall offer and the owner of the property shall accept renewal of the contract subject to the terms and conditions applicable 

at the time of renewal and the availability of appropriations each 

year of such renewal: Provided further, That the Secretary may 

permit transfer of assistance at or after conversion under the demonstration to replacement units subject to the requirements in the 

previous proviso: Provided further, That the Secretary may establish the requirements for converted assistance under the demonstration through contracts, use agreements, regulations, or other 
165 

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 year 2012 and hereafter, 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) 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, 

for conversion of assistance available for such vouchers to assistance under a long-term project-based subsidy contract under section 8 of the Act, which shall have a term of no less than 20 years, 

with rent adjustments only by an operating cost factor established 

by the Secretary, which shall be eligible for renewal under section 

524 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability 

Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note), or, subject to agreement of the 

administering public housing agency, to assistance under section 

8(o)(13) of the Act, to which the limitation under subsection (B) of 

section 8(o)(13) of the Act shall not apply and for which the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may waive or alter the 

provisions of subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 8(o)(13) of the 

Act: Provided further, That amounts made available under the 

heading ‘‘Rental Housing Assistance’’ during the period of conversion under the previous provisoø, which may extend beyond fiscal 

year 2016 as necessary to allow processing of all timely applications,¿ shall be available for project-based subsidy contracts entered into pursuant to the previous proviso: Provided further, That 

amounts, including contract authority, recaptured from contracts 

following a conversion under the previous two provisos are hereby 

rescinded and an amount of additional new budget authority, 

equivalent to the amount rescinded is hereby appropriated, to remain available until expended for such conversions: Provided further, That the Secretary may transfer amounts made available 

under the heading ‘‘Rental Housing Assistance’’, amounts made 

available for tenant protection vouchers under the heading ‘‘Tenant-Based Rental Assistance’’ and specifically associated with any 

such conversions, and amounts made available under the previous 

proviso as needed to the account under the ‘‘Project-Based Rental 

Assistance’’ heading to facilitate conversion under the three previous provisos and any increase in cost for ‘‘Project-Based Rental 

Assistance’’ associated with such conversion shall be equal to 

amounts so transferred: Provided further, That with respect to the 

previous four provisos, the Comptroller General of the United 

States shall conduct a study of the long-term impact of the fiscal 

year 2012 and 2013 conversion of tenant protection vouchers to assistance under section 8(o)(13) of the Act on the ratio of tenantbased vouchers to project-based vouchers. 
166 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

in bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

in bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with the subcommittee 

allocation for 2016: Subcommittee on Transportation 

and Housing and Urban Development, and Related 

Agencies: 

Mandatory .................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................

Discretionary ................................................................ 55,646 55,646 119,707 1 119,698 

Security ............................................................... 186 186 NA Na 

Nonsecurity ......................................................... 55,460 55,460 NA NA 

Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism ...................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2016 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 2 41,542 

2017 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 35,170 

2018 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 13,917 

2019 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 5,793 

2020 and future years ................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... 7,150 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2016 ................................................................................. NA 31,206 NA 2 30,887 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 

NOTE.—Consistent with the funding recommended in the bill as an emergency requirement and in accordance with section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) 

of the BBEDCA of 1985, the Committee anticipates that the Budget Committee will provide a revised 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations reflecting an upward adjustment of $1,000,000 in outlays. 
167 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. 105,000 113,657 93,500 110,738 ∂5,738 ¥2,919 ∂17,238 

Immediate Office of the Secretary .................................................. (2,696 ) ............................ (2,734 ) (2,734 ) (∂38 ) (∂2,734 ) ............................Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary ..................................... (1,011 ) ............................ (1,025 ) (1,025 ) (∂14 ) (∂1,025 ) ............................Office of the General Counsel ........................................................ (19,900 ) ............................ (18,066 ) (20,109 ) (∂209 ) (∂20,109 ) (∂2,043 ) Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy ............ (9,800 ) ............................ (7,810 ) (10,141 ) (∂341 ) (∂10,141 ) (∂2,331 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs ......... (12,500 ) ............................ (7,808 ) (13,867 ) (∂1,367 ) (∂13,867 ) (∂6,059 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs ........... (2,500 ) ............................ (2,250 ) (2,546 ) (∂46 ) (∂2,546 ) (∂296 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ..................... (25,365 ) ............................ (23,529 ) (27,411 ) (∂2,046 ) (∂27,411 ) (∂3,882 ) Office of Public Affairs ................................................................... (2,000 ) ............................ (2,029 ) (2,029 ) (∂29 ) (∂2,029 ) ............................Office of the Executive Secretariat ................................................. (1,714 ) ............................ (1,519 ) (1,769 ) (∂55 ) (∂1,769 ) (∂250 ) Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization .............. (1,414 ) ............................ ............................ (1,434 ) (∂20 ) (∂1,434 ) (∂1,434 ) Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response ............ (10,600 ) ............................ (10,793 ) (10,793 ) (∂193 ) (∂10,793 ) ............................Office of the Chief Information Officer .......................................... (15,500 ) ............................ (15,937 ) (16,880 ) (∂1,380 ) (∂16,880 ) (∂943 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Innovative Finance .............. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Research and technology ......................................................................... 13,000 14,582 11,386 13,000 ............................ ¥1,582 ∂1,614 National infrastructure investments ........................................................ 500,000 ............................ 100,000 500,000 ............................ ∂500,000 ∂400,000 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................................... ............................ (1,250,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥1,250,000 ) ............................(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. ............................ (1,250,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥1,250,000 ) ............................

Infrastructure permitting center .............................................................. ............................ 4,000 ............................ 4,000 ∂4,000 ............................ ∂4,000 Financial management capital ................................................................ 5,000 5,000 1,000 5,000 ............................ ............................ ∂4,000 Cyber security initiatives ......................................................................... 5,000 8,000 7,000 8,000 ∂3,000 ............................ ∂1,000 DATA Act compliance ............................................................................... ............................ 3,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥3,000 ............................U.S. digital services ................................................................................. ............................ 9,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥9,000 ............................Office of Civil Rights ............................................................................... 9,600 9,678 9,600 9,678 ∂78 ............................ ∂78 Transportation planning, research, and development ............................. 6,000 10,019 5,976 6,000 ............................ ¥4,019 ∂24 Working Capital Fund .............................................................................. (181,500 ) ............................ (181,500 ) (190,039 ) (∂8,539 ) (∂190,039 ) (∂8,539 ) Minority Business Resource Center Program ........................................... 925 933 933 933 ∂8 ............................ ............................

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (18,367 ) ............................ (18,367 ) (18,367 ) ............................ (∂18,367 ) ............................
168 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Small and disadvantaged business utilizaton and outreach (Minority 

business outreach) .............................................................................. 3,099 4,518 4,518 3,084 ¥15 ¥1,434 ¥1,434 

Safe transport of oil ................................................................................ ............................ 5,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥5,000 ............................Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) ......................... 155,000 175,000 155,000 175,000 ∂20,000 ............................ ∂20,000 

Total, Office of the Secretary ..................................................... 802,624 362,387 388,913 835,433 ∂32,809 ∂473,046 ∂446,520 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Operations ................................................................................................ 9,740,700 9,915,000 9,844,700 9,897,818 ∂157,118 ¥17,182 ∂53,118 

Air traffic organization .................................................................... (7,396,654 ) (7,505,293 ) (7,505,293 ) (7,505,293 ) (∂108,639 ) ............................ ............................Aviation safety ................................................................................ (1,218,458 ) (1,258,411 ) (1,258,411 ) (1,258,411 ) (∂39,953 ) ............................ ............................Commercial space transportation ................................................... (16,605 ) (18,114 ) (16,855 ) (17,425 ) (∂820 ) (¥689 ) (∂570 ) Finance and management .............................................................. (756,047 ) (764,969 ) (721,750 ) (748,969 ) (¥7,078 ) (¥16,000 ) (∂27,219 ) NextGen ........................................................................................... (60,089 ) (60,582 ) (60,089 ) (60,089 ) ............................ (¥493 ) ............................Staff offices .................................................................................... (292,847 ) (206,751 ) (282,302 ) (206,751 ) (¥86,096 ) ............................ (¥75,551 ) Security and hazardous materials safety ....................................... ............................ (100,880 ) ............................ (100,880 ) (∂100,880 ) ............................ (∂100,880 ) 

Facilities and equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) ........................ 2,600,000 2,855,000 2,503,000 2,600,000 ............................ ¥255,000 ∂97,000 Research, engineering, and development (Airport & Airway Trust Fund 156,750 166,000 156,750 163,325 ∂6,575 ¥2,675 ∂6,575 Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)(Liquidation 

of contract authorization) .................................................................... (3,200,000 ) (3,500,000 ) (3,600,000 ) (3,600,000 ) (∂400,000 ) (∂100,000 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. (3,350,000 ) (2,900,000 ) (3,350,000 ) (3,350,000 ) ............................ (∂450,000 ) ............................

Administration ........................................................................ (107,100 ) (107,100 ) (107,100 ) (107,100 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Airport cooperative research program ................................... (15,000 ) (15,000 ) (15,000 ) (15,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Airport technology research ................................................... (29,750 ) (31,000 ) (31,000 ) (31,000 ) (∂1,250 ) ............................ ............................Small community air service development program ............. (5,500 ) ............................ ............................ (10,000 ) (∂4,500 ) (∂10,000 ) (∂10,000 ) 

Rescission of contract authority ..................................................... ¥260,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂260,000 ............................ ............................Pop-up contract authority ............................................................... 130,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥130,000 ............................ ............................

Total, Federal Aviation Administration ....................................... 12,367,450 12,936,000 12,504,450 12,661,143 ∂293,693 ¥274,857 ∂156,693 

Limitations on obligations ................................................. (3,350,000 ) (2,900,000 ) (3,350,000 ) (3,350,000 ) ............................ (∂450,000 ) ............................
169 

Total budgetary resources ............................................. (15,717,450 ) (15,836,000 ) (15,854,450 ) (16,011,143 ) (∂293,693 ) (∂175,143 ) (∂156,693 ) 

Federal Highway Administration 

Limitation on administrative expenses .................................................... (426,100 ) (442,248 ) (429,348 ) (429,348 ) (∂3,248 ) (¥12,900 ) ............................Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................................... (40,995,000 ) (50,807,248 ) (40,995,000 ) (40,995,000 ) ............................ (¥9,812,248 ) ............................(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. (40,256,000 ) (50,068,248 ) (40,256,000 ) (40,256,000 ) ............................ (¥9,812,248 ) ............................Fixing and accelerating surface transportation (Liquidation of 

contract authorization) ............................................................... ............................ (500,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥500,000 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) .................................................... ............................ (500,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥500,000 ) ............................

(Exempt contract authority) ............................................................ (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Repurposing unused highway funding (Sec. 126) ......................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Total, Federal Highway Administration ...................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Limitations on obligations ................................................. (40,256,000 ) (50,568,248 ) (40,256,000 ) (40,256,000 ) ............................ (¥10,312,248 ) ............................Exempt contract authority ................................................. (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................

Total budgetary resources ............................................. (40,995,000 ) (51,307,248 ) (40,995,000 ) (40,995,000 ) ............................ (¥10,312,248 ) ............................

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust 

Fund)(Liquidation of contract authorization) ...................................... (271,000 ) (329,180 ) (259,000 ) (259,000 ) (¥12,000 ) (¥70,180 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. (271,000 ) (329,180 ) (259,000 ) (259,000 ) (¥12,000 ) (¥70,180 ) ............................

Motor carrier safety srants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) .............................................................................. (313,000 ) (339,343 ) (313,000 ) (313,000 ) ............................ (¥26,343 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. (313,000 ) (339,343 ) (313,000 ) (313,000 ) ............................ (¥26,343 ) ............................

Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Limitations on obligations ................................................. (584,000 ) (668,523 ) (572,000 ) (572,000 ) (¥12,000 ) (¥96,523 ) ............................

Total budgetary resources ............................................. (584,000 ) (668,523 ) (572,000 ) (572,000 ) (¥12,000 ) (¥96,523 ) ............................

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Operations and research (general fund) ................................................. 130,000 ............................ 152,800 130,500 ∂500 ∂130,500 ¥22,300 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................................... ............................ (179,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥179,000 ) ............................(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. ............................ (179,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥179,000 ) ............................

Operations and Research (Highway Trust Fund) 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................................... (138,500 ) (152,000 ) (125,000 ) (118,500 ) (¥20,000 ) (¥33,500 ) (¥6,500 ) 
170 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. (138,500 ) (152,000 ) (125,000 ) (118,500 ) (¥20,000 ) (¥33,500 ) (¥6,500 ) 

Subtotal, Operations and Research ........................................... 268,500 331,000 277,800 249,000 ¥19,500 ¥82,000 ¥28,800 

Highway Traffic Safety Grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of 

contract authorization) ........................................................................ (561,500 ) (577,000 ) (561,500 ) (575,500 ) (∂14,000 ) (¥1,500 ) (∂14,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. (561,500 ) (577,000 ) (561,500 ) (575,500 ) (∂14,000 ) (¥1,500 ) (∂14,000 ) 

Highway safety programs (23 USC 402) ............................... (235,000 ) (241,146 ) (235,000 ) (235,000 ) ............................ (¥6,146 ) ............................National priority safety programs (23 USC 405) .................. (272,000 ) (278,705 ) (272,000 ) (272,000 ) ............................ (¥6,705 ) ............................High visibility enforcement .................................................... (29,000 ) (29,000 ) (29,000 ) (29,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Administrative expenses ........................................................ (25,500 ) (28,149 ) (25,500 ) (25,500 ) ............................ (¥2,649 ) ............................Repurposed for vehicle safety ............................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ (4,000 ) (∂4,000 ) (∂4,000 ) (∂4,000 ) Repurposed for highway saftey research and development ............................ ............................ ............................ (10,000 ) (∂10,000 ) (∂10,000 ) (∂10,000 ) 

Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ..... 130,000 ............................ 152,800 130,500 ∂500 ∂130,500 ¥22,300 

Limitations on obligations ............................................ (700,000 ) (908,000 ) (686,500 ) (694,000 ) (¥6,000 ) (¥214,000 ) (∂7,500 ) Total budgetary resources ............................................. (830,000 ) (908,000 ) (839,300 ) (824,500 ) (¥5,500 ) (¥83,500 ) (¥14,800 ) 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety and operations .............................................................................. 186,870 203,800 190,370 199,000 ∂12,130 ¥4,800 ∂8,630 Railroad research and development ........................................................ 39,100 39,250 39,100 39,100 ............................ ¥150 ............................Railroad safety grants ............................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ 50,000 ∂50,000 ∂50,000 ∂50,000 Rail service improvement program .......................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ...................................... ............................ (2,325,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥2,325,000 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) .................................................... ............................ (2,325,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥2,325,000 ) ............................

National Railroad Passenger Corporation: 

Operating grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 250,000 ............................ 288,500 288,500 ∂38,500 ∂288,500 ............................Capital and debt service grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ..................................................................... 1,140,000 ............................ 859,000 1,101,500 ¥38,500 ∂1,101,500 ∂242,500 Current rail passenger service ....................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

(Liquidation of contract authorization) .................................. ............................ (2,450,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥2,450,000 ) ............................
171 

(Limitation on obligations) ........................................... ............................ (2,450,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥2,450,000 ) ............................

Subtotal .................................................................... 1,390,000 ............................ 1,147,500 1,390,000 ............................ ∂1,390,000 ∂242,500 

Administrative Provisions 

Rail safety grants .................................................................................... 10,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥10,000 ............................ ............................Rail unobligated balances (rescission) (Sec. 152) ................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥4,201 ¥4,201 ¥4,201 ¥4,201 RRIF application expenses (Sec. 152) ..................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 4,201 ∂4,201 ∂4,201 ∂4,201 Rail unobligated balances (rescission) (Sec. 153) ................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥16,922 ¥16,922 ¥16,922 ¥16,922 Northeast Corridor Capital grants (Sec. 153) ......................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 16,922 ∂16,922 ∂16,922 ∂16,922 

Total, Administrative Provisions ................................................. 10,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥10,000 ............................ ............................Total, Federal Railroad Administration ...................................... 1,625,970 243,050 1,376,970 1,678,100 ∂52,130 ∂1,435,050 ∂301,130 

Federal Transit Administration 

Administrative expenses .......................................................................... 105,933 ............................ 97,933 107,000 ∂1,067 ∂107,000 ∂9,067 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................................... ............................ (114,400 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥114,400 ) ............................(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. ............................ (114,400 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥114,400 ) ............................

Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program: 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................................... ............................ (25,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥25,000 ) ............................(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. ............................ (25,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥25,000 ) ............................

Transit Formula Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account (Liquidation of contract authorization) ..................................................... (9,500,000 ) (13,800,000 ) (9,500,000 ) (9,500,000 ) ............................ (¥4,300,000 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. (8,595,000 ) (13,800,000 ) (8,595,000 ) (8,595,000 ) ............................ (¥5,205,000 ) ............................

Fixing and acceleration surface transportation (Liquidation of contract 

authorization) ....................................................................................... ............................ (500,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥500,000 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. ............................ (500,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥500,000 ) ............................

Transit research ....................................................................................... 33,000 ............................ 26,000 32,500 ¥500 ∂32,500 ∂6,500 Technical assistance and training .......................................................... 4,500 ............................ 5,000 3,153 ¥1,347 ∂3,153 ¥1,847 Transit Research and Training: 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................................... ............................ (60,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥60,000 ) ............................(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. ............................ (60,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥60,000 ) ............................

Rapid-Growth Area Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Program (Liquidation of 

contract authorization) ........................................................................ ............................ (500,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥500,000 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. ............................ (500,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥500,000 ) ............................

Capital investment grants ....................................................................... 2,120,000 ............................ 1,921,395 1,585,000 ¥535,000 ∂1,585,000 ¥336,395 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................................... ............................ (3,250,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥3,250,000 ) ............................(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. ............................ (3,250,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥3,250,000 ) ............................
172 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Rescission ....................................................................................... ¥121,546 ............................ ............................ ¥10,000 ∂111,546 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority capital and preventive 

maintenance ........................................................................................ 150,000 150,000 100,000 150,000 ............................ ............................ ∂50,000 

Total, Federal Transit Administration ......................................... 2,291,887 150,000 2,150,328 1,867,653 ¥424,234 ∂1,717,653 ¥282,675 

Limitations on obligations ................................................. (8,595,000 ) (18,249,400 ) (8,595,000 ) (8,595,000 ) ............................ (¥9,654,400 ) ............................

Total budgetary resources ............................................. (10,886,887 ) (18,399,400 ) (10,745,328 ) (10,462,653 ) (¥424,234 ) (¥7,936,747 ) (¥282,675 ) 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) ............ 32,042 36,400 29,042 28,400 ¥3,642 ¥8,000 ¥642 

Maritime Administration 

Maritime Security Program ...................................................................... 186,000 211,000 186,000 186,000 ............................ ¥25,000 ............................Operations and training ........................................................................... 148,050 184,637 164,158 170,000 ∂21,950 ¥14,637 ∂5,842 Ship disposal ........................................................................................... 4,000 8,000 4,000 4,000 ............................ ¥4,000 ............................Assistance to small shipyards ................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ 5,000 ∂5,000 ∂5,000 ∂5,000 Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account: 

Administrative expenses ................................................................. 3,100 3,135 3,135 3,135 ∂35 ............................ ............................Guaranteed loans subsidy .............................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ 5,000 ∂5,000 ∂5,000 ∂5,000 

Total, Maritime Administration ................................................... 341,150 406,772 357,293 373,135 ∂31,985 ¥33,637 ∂15,842 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Operational expenses: 

General fund ................................................................................... 22,225 22,500 21,225 22,500 ∂275 ............................ ∂1,275 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 22,225 22,500 21,225 22,500 ∂275 ............................ ∂1,275 

Hazardous materials safety: 

General fund ................................................................................... 52,000 64,254 60,500 49,000 ¥3,000 ¥15,254 ¥11,500 
173 

Special permit and approval fees .................................................. ............................ ¥6,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂6,000 ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 52,000 58,254 60,500 49,000 ¥3,000 ¥9,254 ¥11,500 

Pipeline Safety: 

General Fund ................................................................................... ............................ 1,500 1,870 ............................ ............................ ¥1,500 ¥1,870 Pipeline Safety Fund ....................................................................... 124,500 152,104 124,500 127,123 ∂2,623 ¥24,981 ∂2,623 Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund ........................................................... 19,500 19,500 19,500 19,500 ............................ ............................ ............................Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund .............................................. 2,000 2,000 ............................ ............................ ¥2,000 ¥2,000 ............................Pipeline safety information grants (by transfer) ............................ (1,500 ) (1,500 ) ............................ (1,500 ) ............................ ............................ (∂1,500 ) 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 146,000 175,104 145,870 146,623 ∂623 ¥28,481 ∂753 Subtotal, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ......................................................................................... 220,225 255,858 227,595 218,123 ¥2,102 ¥37,735 ¥9,472 

Pipeline safety user fees ......................................................................... ¥124,500 ¥152,104 ¥124,500 ¥127,123 ¥2,623 ∂24,981 ¥2,623 Pipeline safety design review fee ............................................................ ¥2,000 ¥2,000 ............................ ............................ ∂2,000 ∂2,000 ............................Emergency preparedness grants: 

Limitation on emergency preparedness fund ................................. (28,318 ) (28,318 ) (28,318 ) (28,318 ) ............................ ............................ ............................

(Emergency preparedness fund) ............................................ (188 ) (188 ) (188 ) (188 ) ............................ ............................ ............................

Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ............................................................................ 93,725 101,754 103,095 91,000 ¥2,725 ¥10,754 ¥12,095 

Office of Inspector General 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. 86,223 87,472 86,223 87,472 ∂1,249 ............................ ∂1,249 

Surface Transportation Board 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. 31,375 32,499 31,375 32,375 ∂1,000 ¥124 ∂1,000 

Offsetting collections ...................................................................... ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ............................ ............................ ............................

Total, Surface Transportation Board .......................................... 30,125 31,249 30,125 31,125 ∂1,000 ¥124 ∂1,000 Total, title I, Department of Transportation ............................... 17,801,196 14,355,084 17,179,239 17,783,961 ¥17,235 ∂3,428,877 ∂604,722 

Appropriations .................................................................... (18,183,992 ) (14,362,334 ) (17,180,489 ) (17,816,334 ) (¥367,658 ) (∂3,454,000 ) (∂635,845 ) Rescissions ........................................................................ (¥121,546 ) ............................ ............................ (¥31,123 ) (∂90,423 ) (¥31,123 ) (¥31,123 ) Rescissions of contract authority ...................................... (¥260,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (∂260,000 ) ............................ ............................Offsetting collections ......................................................... (¥1,250 ) (¥7,250 ) (¥1,250 ) (¥1,250 ) ............................ (∂6,000 ) ............................

(By transfer) ............................................................................... (1,500 ) (1,500 ) ............................ (1,500 ) ............................ ............................ (∂1,500 ) 
174 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Limitations on obligations .......................................................... (53,485,000 ) (79,319,171 ) (53,459,500 ) (53,467,000 ) (¥18,000 ) (¥25,852,171 ) (∂7,500 ) Total budgetary resources .......................................................... (71,286,196 ) (93,674,255 ) (70,638,739 ) (71,250,961 ) (¥35,235 ) (¥22,423,294 ) (∂612,222 ) 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Management and Administration 

Executive Offices ...................................................................................... 14,500 14,646 14,500 14,500 ............................ ¥146 ............................Administration Support Offices ................................................................ 518,100 577,861 547,000 568,244 ∂50,144 ¥9,617 ∂21,244 Program Office Salaries and Expenses: 

Public and Indian Housing ............................................................. 203,000 210,002 203,000 207,000 ∂4,000 ¥3,002 ∂4,000 Community Planning and Development .......................................... 102,000 112,115 102,000 107,000 ∂5,000 ¥5,115 ∂5,000 Housing ........................................................................................... 379,000 397,174 372,000 382,000 ∂3,000 ¥15,174 ∂10,000 Policy Development and Research .................................................. 22,700 23,907 22,700 23,100 ∂400 ¥807 ∂400 Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity .............................................. 68,000 81,132 73,000 69,500 ∂1,500 ¥11,632 ¥3,500 Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes ....................... 6,700 7,812 6,700 6,800 ∂100 ¥1,012 ∂100 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 781,400 832,142 779,400 795,400 ∂14,000 ¥36,742 ∂16,000 Total, Management and Administration ..................................... 1,314,000 1,424,649 1,340,900 1,378,144 ∂64,144 ¥46,505 ∂37,244 

Public and Indian Housing 

Tenant-based rental assistance: 

Renewals ......................................................................................... 17,486,000 18,333,816 18,151,000 17,982,000 ∂496,000 ¥351,816 ¥169,000 Tenant protection vouchers ............................................................. 130,000 150,000 130,000 130,000 ............................ ¥20,000 ............................Administrative fees ......................................................................... 1,530,000 2,020,037 1,530,000 1,620,000 ∂90,000 ¥400,037 ∂90,000 Incremental rental vouchers ........................................................... ............................ 277,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥277,000 ............................Incremental family unification vouchers ........................................ ............................ 20,000 ............................ 20,000 ∂20,000 ............................ ∂20,000 Veterans affairs supportive housing .............................................. 75,000 ............................ ............................ 75,000 ............................ ∂75,000 ∂75,000 Sec. 811 mainstream voucher renewals ........................................ 83,160 107,643 107,643 107,643 ∂24,483 ............................ ............................Special purpose vouchers ............................................................... ............................ 215,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥215,000 ............................
175 

Subtotal (available this fiscal year) .......................................... 19,304,160 21,123,496 19,918,643 19,934,643 ∂630,483 ¥1,188,853 ∂16,000 

Advance appropriations .................................................................. 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 ............................ ............................ ............................Less appropriations from prior year advances ............................... ¥4,000,000 ¥4,000,000 ¥4,000,000 ¥4,000,000 ............................ ............................ ............................

Total, Tenant-based rental assistance appropriated in this 

bill .......................................................................................... 19,304,160 21,123,496 19,918,643 19,934,643 ∂630,483 ¥1,188,853 ∂16,000 

Rental assistance demonstration ............................................................ ............................ 50,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥50,000 ............................Public Housing Capital Fund ................................................................... 1,875,000 1,970,000 1,681,000 1,742,870 ¥132,130 ¥227,130 ∂61,870 Drug elimination (rescission) ................................................................... ¥1,101 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂1,101 ............................ ............................Public Housing Operating Fund ............................................................... 4,440,000 4,600,000 4,440,000 4,500,000 ∂60,000 ¥100,000 ∂60,000 Choice neighborhoods .............................................................................. 80,000 250,000 20,000 65,000 ¥15,000 ¥185,000 ∂45,000 Family self-sufficiency ............................................................................. 75,000 85,000 75,000 75,000 ............................ ¥10,000 ............................Native American Housing Block Grants ................................................... 650,000 660,000 650,000 ............................ ¥650,000 ¥660,000 ¥650,000 Indian block grants: 

Indian Housing Block Grant ............................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ 650,000 ∂650,000 ∂650,000 ∂650,000 Indian CDBG .................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 60,000 ∂60,000 ∂60,000 ∂60,000 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 710,000 ∂710,000 ∂710,000 ∂710,000 

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant .................................................... 9,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥9,000 ............................ ............................Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account ........................ 7,000 8,000 8,000 7,000 ............................ ¥1,000 ¥1,000 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (744,047 ) (1,269,841 ) (1,269,841 ) (1,111,111 ) (∂367,064 ) (¥158,730 ) (¥158,730 ) 

Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account ...................... 100 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥100 ............................ ............................

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (16,130 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥16,130 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Public and Indian Housing .............................................. 26,439,159 28,746,496 26,792,643 27,034,513 ∂595,354 ¥1,711,983 ∂241,870 

Community Planning and Development 

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS ......................................... 330,000 332,000 335,000 330,000 ............................ ¥2,000 ¥5,000 Community Development Fund: 

CDBG formula ................................................................................. 3,000,000 2,800,000 3,000,000 2,900,000 ¥100,000 ∂100,000 ¥100,000 Indian CDBG .................................................................................... 66,000 80,000 60,000 ............................ ¥66,000 ¥80,000 ¥60,000 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 3,066,000 2,880,000 3,060,000 2,900,000 ¥166,000 ∂20,000 ¥160,000 

Youth Build (rescission) ........................................................................... ¥460 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂460 ............................ ............................Community development loan guarantees (Sec. 108): 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (500,000 ) (300,000 ) (300,000 ) (300,000 ) (¥200,000 ) ............................ ............................
176 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Rescission ....................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥2,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂2,000 

HOME Investment Partnerships Program ................................................. 900,000 1,060,000 767,000 66,000 ¥834,000 ¥994,000 ¥701,000 

Transfer from Housing Trust Fund ................................................. ............................ ............................ 133,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥133,000 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 900,000 1,060,000 900,000 66,000 ¥834,000 ¥994,000 ¥834,000 

Housing Trust Fund (transfer out) ........................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥133,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂133,000 Self-help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program ................ 50,000 ............................ 50,000 55,700 ∂5,700 ∂55,700 ∂5,700 Homeless Assistance Grants .................................................................... 2,135,000 2,480,000 2,185,000 2,235,000 ∂100,000 ¥245,000 ∂50,000 Brownfields (rescission) ........................................................................... ¥2,913 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂2,913 ............................ ............................

Total, Community Planning and Development ........................... 6,477,627 6,752,000 6,395,000 5,586,700 ¥890,927 ¥1,165,300 ¥808,300 

Housing Programs 

Project-based rental assistance: 

Renewals ......................................................................................... 9,520,000 10,545,000 10,504,000 10,611,000 ∂1,091,000 ∂66,000 ∂107,000 Contract administrators .................................................................. 210,000 215,000 150,000 215,000 ∂5,000 ............................ ∂65,000 

Subtotal (available this fiscal year) .......................................... 9,730,000 10,760,000 10,654,000 10,826,000 ∂1,096,000 ∂66,000 ∂172,000 

Advance appropriations .................................................................. 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 ............................ ............................ ............................Less appropriations from prior year advances ............................... ¥400,000 ¥400,000 ¥400,000 ¥400,000 ............................ ............................ ............................

Total, Project-based rental assistance appropriated in this bill 9,730,000 10,760,000 10,654,000 10,826,000 ∂1,096,000 ∂66,000 ∂172,000 

Housing for the elderly ............................................................................ 420,000 455,000 416,500 420,000 ............................ ¥35,000 ∂3,500 Housing for persons with disabilities ...................................................... 135,000 177,000 152,000 137,000 ∂2,000 ¥40,000 ¥15,000 Housing counseling assistance ............................................................... 47,000 60,000 47,000 47,000 ............................ ¥13,000 ............................Rental housing assistance ...................................................................... 18,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 ∂12,000 ............................ ............................Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund .................................................. 10,000 11,000 11,000 10,000 ............................ ¥1,000 ¥1,000 

Offsetting collections ...................................................................... ¥10,000 ¥11,000 ¥11,000 ¥10,000 ............................ ∂1,000 ∂1,000 
177 

Total, Housing Programs ............................................................ 10,350,000 11,482,000 11,299,500 11,460,000 ∂1,110,000 ¥22,000 ∂160,500 

Federal Housing Administration 

Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (400,000,000 ) (400,000,000 ) (400,000,000 ) (400,000,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................(Limitation on direct loans) ............................................................ (20,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (¥15,000 ) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts .......................................................................... ¥7,951,000 ¥7,003,000 ¥7,003,000 ¥7,003,000 ∂948,000 ............................ ............................Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM) .............................................. ¥36,000 ¥97,000 ¥97,000 ¥97,000 ¥61,000 ............................ ............................Additional offsetting receipts (Pres. Sec. 244) .............................. ............................ ¥29,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂29,000 ............................Administrative contract expenses ................................................... 130,000 174,000 130,000 130,000 ............................ ¥44,000 ............................

General and Special Risk Program Account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (30,000,000 ) (30,000,000 ) (30,000,000 ) (30,000,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................(Limitation on direct loans) ............................................................ (20,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (¥15,000 ) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts .......................................................................... ¥876,000 ¥657,000 ¥657,000 ¥657,000 ∂219,000 ............................ ............................Rescission ....................................................................................... ¥10,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂10,000 ............................ ............................

Total, Federal Housing Administration ....................................... ¥8,743,000 ¥7,612,000 ¥7,627,000 ¥7,627,000 ∂1,116,000 ¥15,000 ............................

Government National Mortgage Association 

Guarantees of Mortgage-backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program 

Account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (500,000,000 ) (500,000,000 ) (500,000,000 ) (500,000,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Administrative expenses ................................................................. 23,000 28,320 23,000 23,000 ............................ ¥5,320 ............................Offsetting collections ...................................................................... ¥94,000 ¥118,000 ¥118,000 ¥118,000 ¥24,000 ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts .......................................................................... ¥742,000 ¥747,000 ¥747,000 ¥747,000 ¥5,000 ............................ ............................Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM) .............................................. ¥28,000 ¥21,000 ¥21,000 ¥21,000 ∂7,000 ............................ ............................Additional contract expenses .......................................................... 1,000 1,000 ............................ 1,000 ............................ ............................ ∂1,000 

Total, Gov’t National Mortgage Association ............................... ¥840,000 ¥856,680 ¥863,000 ¥862,000 ¥22,000 ¥5,320 ∂1,000 

Policy Development and Research 

Research and technology ......................................................................... 72,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 ¥22,000 ............................ ............................

(By transfer) .................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ (40,000 ) (∂40,000 ) (∂40,000 ) (∂40,000 ) 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 

Fair housing activities ............................................................................. 65,300 71,000 65,300 65,300 ............................ ¥5,700 ............................
178 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes 

Lead hazard reduction ............................................................................. 110,000 120,000 75,000 110,000 ............................ ¥10,000 ∂35,000 Information Technology Fund ................................................................... 250,000 334,000 97,000 250,000 ............................ ¥84,000 ∂153,000 Office of Inspector General ...................................................................... 126,000 129,000 126,000 126,000 ............................ ¥3,000 ............................Transformation initiative .......................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

(by transfer) .................................................................................... ............................ (120,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥120,000 ) ............................

General Provisions 

Unobligated balances (Sec. 233) (rescission) ......................................... ............................ ............................ ¥7,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂7,000 Rural Housing and Developement unobligated balances (Sec. 234) (rescission) ............................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥3,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂3,000 Management and Administration unobligated balances (Sec. 234) (rescission) ............................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥2,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂2,000 Unobligated balances (sec. 234) (rescission) ......................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥16,000 ¥16,000 ¥16,000 ¥16,000 

Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Development 35,621,086 40,640,465 37,739,343 37,555,657 ∂1,934,571 ¥3,084,808 ¥183,686 

Appropriations .................................................................... (40,972,560 ) (44,923,465 ) (42,007,343 ) (41,824,657 ) (∂852,097 ) (¥3,098,808 ) (¥182,686 ) Rescissions ........................................................................ (¥14,474 ) ............................ (¥14,000 ) (¥16,000 ) (¥1,526 ) (¥16,000 ) (¥2,000 ) Advance appropriations ..................................................... (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................. (¥9,727,000 ) (¥8,672,000 ) (¥8,643,000 ) (¥8,643,000 ) (∂1,084,000 ) (∂29,000 ) ............................Offsetting collections ......................................................... (¥10,000 ) (¥11,000 ) (¥11,000 ) (¥10,000 ) ............................ (∂1,000 ) (∂1,000 ) 

(By transfer) ............................................................................... ............................ 120,000 ............................ 40,000 ∂40,000 ¥80,000 ∂40,000 (By transfer, emergency) ............................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................(Limitation on direct loans) ....................................................... (40,000 ) (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (¥30,000 ) ............................ ............................(Limitation on guaranteed loans) .............................................. (931,260,177 ) (931,569,841 ) (931,569,841 ) (931,411,111 ) (∂150,934 ) (¥158,730 ) (¥158,730 ) 

TITLE III—OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Access Board ............................................................................................ 7,548 8,023 7,548 8,023 ∂475 ............................ ∂475 Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General (legislative proposal) ....................................................................................... ............................ 50,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥50,000 ............................

Offsetting collections (legislative proposal) ................................... ............................ ¥50,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂50,000 ............................
179 

Federal Maritime Commission ................................................................. 25,660 27,387 25,660 25,660 ............................ ¥1,727 ............................National Railroad Passenger Corporation Office of Inspector General ... 23,999 24,499 24,499 23,999 ............................ ¥500 ¥500 National Transportation Safety Board ..................................................... 103,981 105,170 103,981 105,170 ∂1,189 ............................ ∂1,189 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ................................................. 185,000 182,300 177,000 140,000 ¥45,000 ¥42,300 ¥37,000 United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ............................. 3,530 3,530 3,530 3,530 ............................ ............................ ............................

Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies ............................... 349,718 350,909 342,218 306,382 ¥43,336 ¥44,527 ¥35,836 Grand total ................................................................................. 53,772,000 55,346,458 55,260,800 55,646,000 ∂1,874,000 ∂299,542 ∂385,200 

Appropriations .................................................................... (59,506,270 ) (59,686,708 ) (59,530,050 ) (59,947,373 ) (∂441,103 ) (∂260,665 ) (∂417,323 ) Rescissions ........................................................................ (¥136,020 ) ............................ (¥14,000 ) (¥47,123 ) (∂88,897 ) (¥47,123 ) (¥33,123 ) Rescissions of contract authority ...................................... (¥260,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (∂260,000 ) ............................ ............................Advance appropriations ..................................................... (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................. (¥9,727,000 ) (¥8,672,000 ) (¥8,643,000 ) (¥8,643,000 ) (∂1,084,000 ) (∂29,000 ) ............................Offsetting collections ......................................................... (¥11,250 ) (¥68,250 ) (¥12,250 ) (¥11,250 ) ............................ (∂57,000 ) (∂1,000 ) 

(By transfer) ............................................................................... 1,500 121,500 ............................ 41,500 ∂40,000 ¥80,000 ∂41,500 (By transfer, emergency) ............................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................(Limitation on obligations) ......................................................... (53,485,000 ) (79,319,171 ) (53,459,500 ) (53,467,000 ) (¥18,000 ) (¥25,852,171 ) (∂7,500 ) Total budgetary resources .......................................................... (107,257,000 ) (134,665,629 ) (108,720,300 ) (109,113,000 ) (∂1,856,000 ) (¥25,552,629 ) (∂392,700 ) 

Æ