88–078 PDF 

Calendar No. 412 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 113–182 

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

2015 

JUNE 5, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. MURRAY, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2438] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2438) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and 

Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. 

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

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $54,439,000,000 

Amount of 2014 appropriations ............................... 50,856,000,000 

Amount of 2015 budget estimate 1 .......................... 50,975,337,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2014 appropriations .......................................... ∂3,583,000,000 

2015 budget estimate ........................................ ∂3,463,663,000 1The budget estimate proposed converting $4,287,000,000 associated with certain 

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

programs. 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

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

Title I: Department of Transportation: 

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

Federal Aviation Administration .................................................................... 25 

Federal Highway Administration .................................................................... 46 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ............................................... 56 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration .......................................... 62 

Federal Railroad Administration .................................................................... 69 

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

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ....................................... 85 

Maritime Administration ................................................................................. 86 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ........................... 92 

Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 97 

Surface Transportation Board ......................................................................... 98 

General Provisions—Department of Transportation ..................................... 98 

Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

Management and Administration ................................................................... 101 

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

Program Offices Salaries and Expenses ......................................................... 103 

Public and Indian Housing .............................................................................. 107 

Community Planning and Development ......................................................... 123 

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

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

Government National Mortgage Association .................................................. 138 

Policy Development and Research .................................................................. 139 

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

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

Information Technology Fund ......................................................................... 142 

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

Transformation Initiative ................................................................................ 144 

General Provisions—Department of Housing and Urban Development ...... 147 

Title III: Independent Agencies: 

Access Board ..................................................................................................... 150 

Federal Maritime Commission ........................................................................ 151 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Office of Inspector General ...... 151 

National Transportation Safety Board ........................................................... 152 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ....................................................... 153 

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ................................... 155 

Title IV: General Provisions—This Act .................................................................. 157 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 159 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 160 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 161 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 178 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 179 
(3) 

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL 

The Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and 

Related Agencies appropriations bill provides funding for a wide 

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

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

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

homeless, elderly, and disabled; resources to support community 

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

pipeline safety; and a wide range of research efforts. 

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

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

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

partners to protect human health and safety, support a vibrant 

economy, and achieve policy objectives strongly supported by the 

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

investments is made challenging by pressure on available levels of 

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

This bill makes the operation of the interstate highway system 

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

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

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

gradual elimination of homelessness among veterans. This bill also 

includes funding for competitive grants to communities to support 

transportation infrastructure projects of national or regional importance. 

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

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

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

for fiscal year 2015. All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to 

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

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

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY 

During fiscal year 2015, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget 

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

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

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

Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports 

and joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. 

This definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget 

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

grants and discretionary grant allocations made through either bill 

or report language. For example, the percentage reductions made 

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

in the budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate 

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

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES 

The Committee includes a provision (section 405) establishing 

the authority by which funding available to the agencies funded by 

this act may be reprogrammed for other purposes. The provision 

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

funds that: 

—creates a new program; 

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

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

been denied or restricted by the Congress; 

—proposes to redirect funds that were directed in such reports 

for a specific activity to a different purpose; 

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

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

—creates, reorganizes, or restructures offices different from the 

congressional budget justifications or the table at the end of 

the Committee report, whichever is more detailed. 

The Committee retains the requirement that each agency submit 

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

authorities provided in this act. Specifically, each agency should 

provide a table for each appropriation with columns displaying the 

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

year enacted level. The table shall delineate the appropriation and 

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

2016 budget request by agencies funded under this act contain the 

customary level of detailed data and explanatory statements to 

support the appropriations requests at the level of detail contained 

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

items, agencies shall provide a detailed discussion of proposed new 

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

prior year enactment, and detailed data on all programs and comprehensive information on any office or agency restructurings. At 
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 2016 to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 

The Committee is aware that the analytical materials required 

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

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

advance on its planned presentation for its budget justification materials in support of the fiscal year 2016 budget request. 

INCREASING EFFICIENCY

The departments, agencies, boards, and commissions funded in 

this bill can and should continue to reduce operating expenses by 

placing greater scrutiny on overhead costs. Savings can and should 

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

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

board, and commission funded in this bill to develop a plan to reduce such costs by at least 10 percent in fiscal year 2015. Plans to 

achieve these savings in fiscal year 2015 should be submitted to 

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

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

The Solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and Authorization of 

Transportation Program.—This year, the Committee is in the position of recommending funding levels for Federal highway, transit, 

and highway and truck safety programs without any assurances 

that sufficient balances will be available from the Highway Trust 

Fund to support these programs, even at the funding levels enacted 

for the current year. Furthermore, the Committee is conducting its 

work without any certainty that the necessary contract authority 

will be available for the whole of fiscal year 2015. 

The situation of the Highway Trust Fund is especially precarious. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of 

Transportation project that current balances of the highway and 

transit accounts of the Highway Trust Fund will be depleted before 

the end of fiscal year 2015. In fact, the Department of Transportation projects that the balances of the trust fund’s highway account to reach critical levels in July of this year. At that point, the 

Department expects it will have to delay reimbursements to States 

who have spent their own funds on eligible highway projects. 

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

its commitments to the State and local governments that rely on 

these transportation programs to support their communities. Because the highway program works on a reimbursable basis, States 

work closely with the Department of Transportation before beginning a project to ensure that it is eligible for Federal funding. As 

work is completed on a project, State agencies use their own money 

to pay contractors the full cost of the work, knowing that the Federal Government has agreed to pay its share in a timely manner. 

The State submits vouchers to the Department of Transportation 

for the Federal share of the work, which is usually reimbursed on 

the same day that the voucher is submitted. However, these reimbursements are paid out of the Highway Trust Fund. If we do not 

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

governments bearing the full cost of these transportation projects. 

This partnership between Federal and State governments has 

been a fundamental part of building and maintaining our highways 

for almost 100 years. Today, however, many States are deciding 

that they cannot rely on the Federal Government this summer. 

They are bracing for a shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund by delaying construction projects that would have supported jobs and 

improved their transportation systems. 

The funding of most surface transportation programs also relies 

on the availability of contract authority, which expires under current law at the end of the current fiscal year. The Administration 
8 

has released its proposal for authorizing these programs over the 

next 4 years, and the relevant authorizing committees are putting 

together their legislation. Unfortunately, it is still not clear if the 

levels of contract authority for the next fiscal year will be enacted 

as part of a multi-year authorization law, a short-term extension 

that covers all of fiscal year 2015, or a series of short-term extensions that eventually cover the whole fiscal year. What is clear is 

that the use of short-term extensions has only served to exacerbate 

the insecurity felt by State and local governments that rely on Federal transportation programs for investing in their communities. 

The Committee has spoken on these issues many times in recent 

years. Committee reports have repeatedly called for bringing longterm solvency to the Highway Trust Fund, and for 4 years in a 

row, the Committee has recommended funding levels without 

knowing when the necessary contract authority would be enacted. 

In the meantime, the Committee must fulfill its responsibility to 

recommend appropriate funding levels for offices and programs at 

the Department of Transportation. In order to put forward realistic 

funding recommendations, the Committee is assuming that authorization for transportation programs will be extended through fiscal 

year 2015 at the levels authorized for fiscal year 2014. This assumption is consistent with recent extensions of the transportation 

programs. This assumption is especially relevant for those programs that rely on contract authority provided in the authorization 

acts, including the Federal-aid Highways program, the formula and 

bus transit programs, the programs of the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, and most funding for the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. 

Crimea.—The Committee remains concerned about the Russian 

aggression in Ukraine, Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, and 

Russia’s illegal and unacceptable efforts to exploit stolen Crimean 

resources, and urges that none of the funds in this act be used to 

recognize, or imply recognition of, the sovereignty of the Russian 

Federation over Crimea, its territory, airspace, or territorial waters. 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

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

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

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

Policy; four Assistant Secretarial offices for Budget and Programs, 

Governmental Affairs, Research and Technology, and Administration; and the Offices of Public Affairs, the Executive Secretariat, 

Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response, and Chief Information Officer. The 

Office of the Secretary also includes the Department’s Office of 

Civil Rights and the Department’s Working Capital Fund. 
9 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $107,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 109,916,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 108,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation finances the costs of policy development and 

central supervisory and coordinating functions necessary for the 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $108,000,000 for salaries 

and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and representation expenses. The recommendation is $1,916,000 less than the budget request and 

$1,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The accompanying bill stipulates that none of the funding provided may 

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

The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 

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

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

Office of the Secretary for salaries and expenses. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and the 

budget request: 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2014 enacted 2015 estimate 

Office of the Secretary ......................................................................... $2,652,000 $2,696,000 $2,696,000 

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

Office of the General Counsel ............................................................. 19,900,000 20,312,000 19,980,000 

Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy ................. 10,271,000 10,417,000 10,300,000 

Office of the Assistance Secretary for Budget and Programs ............ 12,676,000 13,111,000 12,676,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs ............... 2,530,000 2,567,000 2,500,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration .......................... 26,378,000 27,420,000 27,131,000 

Office of Public Affairs ........................................................................ 2,020,000 2,061,000 2,000,000 

Office of the Executive Secretariat ...................................................... 1,714,000 1,746,000 1,714,000 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ................... 1,386,000 1,414,000 1,414,000 

Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response ................. 10,778,000 11,055,000 10,778,000 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................... 15,695,000 16,106,000 15,800,000 

Total ........................................................................................ 107,000,000 109,916,000 108,000,000 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Secretary of Transportation provides leadership and has the 

primary responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and 

control of the Department. 
10 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,696,000 for fiscal year 2015 for 

the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation is 

equal to the budget request and $44,000 more than the fiscal year 

2014 enacted level. 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility of assisting 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,011,000 for the Immediate Office 

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

$11,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services to the 

Office of the Secretary, including the conduct of aviation regulatory 

proceedings and aviation consumer activities, and coordinates and 

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

administrations. The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of 

the Department of Transportation and the final authority within 

the Department on all legal questions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $19,980,000 for expenses of the Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2015. The recommended 

funding level is $332,000 less than the budget request and $80,000 

more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

Mobile Wireless Devices.—On February 24, 2014, the Department 

published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No. 

DOT–OST–2014–0002) regarding the use of mobile wireless devices 

for voice calls on commercial aircraft. The approval of voice communication over mobile wireless devices during commercial airline 

flights would be problematic for many of the two million Americans 

who fly each day and challenging for the airlines. The Committee 

directs the Department to complete its rulemaking expeditiously 

and put in place a clear rule that takes into account the full impact 

on consumers and the commercial aviation industry. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

Department and is responsible to the Secretary for the analysis, development, and review of policies and plans for domestic and international transportation matters. The Office administers the economic regulatory functions regarding the airline industry and is responsible for international aviation programs, the essential air 
11 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,300,000 for the Office of the 

Under Secretary for Policy. The recommended funding level is 

$117,000 less than the budget request and $29,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs serves as the 

Chief Financial Officer for the Department and provides leadership 

on all financial management matters. The primary responsibilities 

of this office include ensuring the development and justification of 

the Department’s annual budget submissions for consideration by 

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

is also responsible for the proper execution and accountability of 

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

Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $12,676,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The recommended level 

is $435,000 less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal 

year 2014 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises the 

Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental activities and 

on all departmental legislative initiatives and other relationships 

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

and ensures that consumer preferences, awareness, and needs are 

brought into the decisionmaking process. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $2,500,000 for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The recommended level is $67,000 less than the budget request and 

$30,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for establishing policies and procedures, setting guidelines, working with 
12 

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $27,131,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding 

level is $289,000 less than the budget request and $753,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

Response to the Government Accountability Office.—The Committee understands that although the Government Accountability 

Office [GAO], consistent with generally accepted Government auditing standards, provides the Secretary of Transportation with the 

opportunity to give substantive comments on draft GAO reports before they are issued, the Secretary’s longstanding practice has been 

to decline to provide such comments. In particular, the Committee 

understands that the Secretary routinely declines to state the Department’s position on whether it agrees or disagrees with GAO 

recommendations for agency action and the rationale for any disagreement. The Committee has therefore included a provision in 

title IV that requires all agencies and departments funded in the 

act to respond to GAO recommendations in a timely manner. 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

Affairs, which is $61,000 less than the budget request and $20,000 

less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and the Deputy 

Secretary in carrying out their management functions and responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and external written materials. 
13 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization has 

primary responsibility for providing policy direction for small and 

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

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

amended. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,414,000, an amount that is equal 

to the budget request and $28,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 

enacted level. 

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

advisors apprised of current developments and long-range trends in 

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

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

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

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

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

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

and recovery support through the National Response Framework 

and operates the Department’s Crisis Management Center. The 

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,778,000 for the Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response. The recommendation is 

$277,000 less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 

2014 enacted level. 
14 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

technology, cybersecurity, privacy, and records management. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $15,800,000, which is $306,000 less 

than the budget request and $105,000 more than the fiscal year 

2014 enacted level. 

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $14,765,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 14,625,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

Positioning System; and overseeing and providing direction to the 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the Intelligent Transportation 

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

and the Transportation Safety Institute. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,500,000 for 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology. 

This amount is $1,125,000 less than the budget request, and 

$1,265,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the budget request and the fiscal year 2014 enacted 

level: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2014 enacted 2015 estimate 

Salaries and Administrative Expenses ................................................ $6,547,000 $6,407,000 $5,491,000 

Research, Development and Technology Coordination ........................ 509,000 509,000 300,000 

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

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

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

Total ........................................................................................ 14,765,000 14,625,000 13,500,000 

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

Centers. This funding is provided through the Federal Highway 
15 

Administration, and the level is consistent with the Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act. 

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

activities that have the potential for commercialization. The Volpe 

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

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

involving a cross-section of the transportation community, and 

technical assistance to private organizations and State and local 

governments. The Committee recognizes the importance of the 

SBIR program and its success in commercialization from Federal 

funded research and development projects. Through its work, the 

SBIR program creates jobs in the smallest firms. The Committee 

therefore encourages the Department to place an increased focus on 

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

that SBIR spending levels meet or exceed statutory requirements. 

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $600,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 1 ......................................................................... 1,250,000,000 

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

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides grants and credit assistance to State and 

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

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

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

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

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

needs of urban and rural communities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

and credit assistance for investment in significant transportation 

projects, which is $50,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The administration assumed that this program would 

be funded as a part of comprehensive legislation to reauthorize surface transportation programs, and classified the funding as mandatory spending. The Committee, however, does not expect the enactment of legislation that funds this program on the mandatory side 

of the budget, and so provides its funding recommendation in order 

to continue investment in these important transportation projects. 

Management Review by the Government Accountability Offices.— 

On May 28, the Government Accountability Office [GAO] issued a 

management report following its review of how the Department 

provided grants in fiscal year 2013 under this heading. GAO wrote 
16 

in support of the grant program, saying, ‘‘In prior work, we have 

recommended that a merit-based competitive approach be used to 

direct a portion of Federal funds to transportation projects of national and regional significance.’’ GAO offers recommendations as 

a way to strengthen the program by taking measures to improve 

its accountability. Specifically, GAO recommends that the Department establish clear policies on how applications submitted after 

the deadline are treated, and on how program managers document 

major decisions in the application evaluation and project selection 

process. 

In its response to GAO’s report, the Department recognized the 

value of GAO’s recommendations and described specific steps it has 

already undertaken to implement them. The Department also acknowledged that it experienced challenges during the fiscal year 

2013 process, including technical difficulties with the grants.gov 

Web site, the loss of key members of the program’s leadership 

team, and a compressed schedule caused by a late appropriation 

and an obligation deadline of less than 18 months. The Committee 

appreciates that the program now has a strong leadership team 

that is committed to the program’s accountability, and the Committee urges the Department to implement all of the promised improvements. In addition, the Committee has lengthened the 

amount of time that TIGER funds are available for obligation, ensuring that the Department will have the time necessary to conduct a responsible competition and fully document its process without making compromises due to time constraints. 

Planning Activities.—The Committee recommendation includes 

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

projects eligible for funding under this heading. 

Protections for Rural Areas.—The Committee continues to believe 

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

to require the Secretary to award grants and credit assistance in 

a manner that ensures an equitable geographic distribution of 

funds and an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban 

and rural communities. 

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

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

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

areas, and included specific provisions to match grant requirements 

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

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $7,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Financial Management Capital program is a multi-year business transformation initiative to streamline and standardize the financial systems and business processes across the Department. 
17 

The initiative includes upgrading and enhancing the commercial 

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

the budget request and $2,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 

enacted level. 

CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $4,455,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Cyber Security Initiative is an effort to close performance 

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

breaches. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to support 

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

budget request and $545,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $9,551,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 9,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,600,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

formulating civil rights policies and procedures for the operating 

administrations, investigating claims that small businesses were 

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

civil rights responsibilities and making final determinations on 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a funding level of $9,600,000 for the 

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

request and $49,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 
18 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $7,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 8,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Secretary performs those research activities and 

studies which can more effectively or appropriately be conducted at 

the departmental level. This research effort supports the planning, 

research, and development activities needed to assist the Secretary 

in the formulation of national transportation policies. The program 

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

private firms. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for transportation planning, research, and development, which is $1,000,000 less than the 

budget request and $2,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

Study on Air Quality in Rail Cars and Stations.—The Committee 

is aware of news reports that have found poor air quality in some 

diesel powered commuter rail cars and stations. The Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study of the air 

quality in passenger cars of commuter or intercity trains with diesel or diesel-electric locomotives and rail stations serviced by diesel 

or diesel-electric locomotives, and determine cost-effective ways to 

reduce diesel emissions and improve air quality in these passenger 

cars and rail stations. The Secretary is encouraged to work with 

modal Administrators, commuter rail transit agencies, the public 

transportation industry, public health groups, the transportation 

research board and commuter rail worker organizations in conducting the study. The Secretary is directed to issue a report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than one 

year after enactment of this act on the findings of the study. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2014 ..................................................................................... $178,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 1 ......................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 182,000,000 

1Proposed without limitation. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Working Capital Fund provides technical and administrative 

services to the Department’s operating administrations and other 

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

agreements with Department operating administrations and other 

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

maximum extent possible. 
19 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $182,000,000 on activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The recommended limit is $4,000,000 more than the limit enacted for fiscal year 2014. The Department requested that no limitation be included in the bill. 

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

Working Capital Fund shall apply only to the Department and not 

to services provided for other entities. The Committee directs that 

services shall be provided on a competitive basis to the maximum 

extent possible. 

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

the justifications for fiscal year 2015 provides essential information 

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

Officer, including the balance of resources provided through the 

Working Capital Fund and direct appropriations. Therefore, the 

Committee directs the Department to update this ‘‘transparency 

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

2016. 

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriations Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2014 ......................................................................................................... $925,000 $18,367,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ..................................................................................................... 1,013,000 18,367,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Minority Business Resource Center of the Office of Small 

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

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

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

of this program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $333,000 to 

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

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

for the Minority Business Resource Center. This total funding level 

is $88,000 less than the budget estimate and equal to the fiscal 

year 2014 enacted level. The Committee also recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of $18,367,000, which is equal to the 

budget request and the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

The Department requested an increase in funding to cover the 

subsidy cost and administrative expenses of this program. However, the current funding level still gives the Department sufficient 

room to cover an increase in the cost of providing each loan guar-
20 

antee as well as growth in the overall size of the program. Should 

the funding level become a constraint to the program in the future, 

the Committee will revisit this issue. 

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $3,088,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 3,099,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,099,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides contractual support to assist small, 

women-owned, Native American, and other disadvantaged business 

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

provided for these activities since this program provides grants and 

contract assistance that serve Department-wide goals and not just 

OST purposes. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,099,000 for grants and contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year 2015. The 

recommendation is equal to the budget request and $11,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations Mandatory 1 Total 

Appropriation, 2014 ................................................................................... $149,000,000 $120,640,000 $269,640,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 .............................................................................. 155,000,000 106,000,000 261,000,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 155,000,000 106,000,000 261,000,000 

1Mandatory funding is supported by overflight fees provided to the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to section 41742 of title 49, United States Code. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides funding for the Essential Air Service 

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

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

that meet certain criteria. 

The Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] collects user fees 

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the appropriation of $155,000,000 

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

an estimated $106,000,000 of overflight fees collected by the Federal Aviation Administration, allowing the Department to support 

a total program level for EAS of about $261,000,000. The appropriation and the level of funding from overflight fees under the 
21 

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

The total program level under the Committee’s recommendation is 

$8,640,000 less than the total program level enacted for fiscal year 

2014; the total program level enacted for that year was comprised 

of an appropriation of $149,000,000 plus $120,640,000 in overflight 

fees. 

Proximity to the Nearest Hub Airport.—The Committee continues 

to include a provision that prohibits the Department from entering 

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

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

was first added in the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations 

Act. 

Aircraft Size Requirement.—The Committee continues to include 

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

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

seat aircraft continues to age and grow more difficult for airlines 

to maintain. The Committee, however, expects that the Department will use this flexibility judiciously. The Department should 

use it for communities where historical passenger levels indicate 

that smaller aircraft would still accommodate the great majority of 

passengers, or for communities where viable proposals for service 

are not available. The Committee does not expect the Department 

to use this flexibility simply to lower costs if a community can show 

regular enplanement levels that would justify larger aircraft. 

Passenger Levels and Subsidy Rates.—The table below reflects 

the points in the continental United States currently receiving EAS 

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

passenger. 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER 

State EAS communities 

Est. miles to 

nearest hub 

(S, M, or L) 

Average 

enplanements 

per day 

Annual subsidy rates at 

6/1/13 

Passenger 

totals at 

12/31/12 

Subsidy per 

passenger at 6/1/13 

AL Muscle Shoals ................................. 60 6.3 $2,603,365 3,973 $655 

AR El Dorado/Camden ........................... 117 12.4 1,977,153 7,742 255 

AR Harrison ........................................... 86 17.6 2,251,207 11,017 204 

AR Hot Springs ...................................... 51 8.6 1,637,012 5,353 306 

AR Jonesboro ......................................... 82 15.6 1,942,890 9,796 198 

AZ Kingman .......................................... 121 2.7 1,635,180 1,661 984 

AZ Page ................................................. 282 20.2 2,472,028 12,639 196 

AZ Prescott ............................................ 102 17.2 2,094,325 10,797 194 

AZ Show Low ......................................... 154 11.9 1,672,000 7,461 224 

CA Crescent City ................................... 231 40.4 1,996,959 25,279 79 

CA El Centro .......................................... 101 9.5 1,943,751 5,950 327 

CA Merced ............................................. 60 7.7 1,698,878 4,810 353 

CA Visalia .............................................. 47 10.8 1,697,929 6,762 251 

CO Alamosa ........................................... 164 22.3 2,078,676 13,941 149 

CO Cortez ............................................... 255 26.1 2,240,766 16,336 137 

CO Pueblo .............................................. 36 14.6 1,737,732 9,141 190 

GA Athens .............................................. 72 5.9 1,630,410 3,681 443 

GA Macon .............................................. 82 4.0 1,998,696 2,482 805 

IA Burlington ........................................ 74 20.8 1,917,566 12,994 148 

IA Fort Dodge ....................................... 91 9.4 1,798,693 5,868 307 

IA Mason City ....................................... 131 11.3 1,174,468 7,096 166 

IA Sioux City ......................................... 88 80.7 1,512,799 50,509 30 

IA Waterloo ........................................... 63 61.5 1,541,824 38,472 40 

IL Decatur ............................................ 126 20.5 2,667,922 12,803 208 
22 

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 

12/31/12 

Subsidy per 

passenger at 6/1/13 

IL Marion/Herrin ................................... 123 32.1 2,104,616 20,099 105 

IL Quincy .............................................. 111 33.1 1,956,856 20,728 94 

KS Dodge City ....................................... 150 18.7 1,688,598 11,712 144 

KS Garden City ...................................... 202 73.4 2,919,026 45,951 64 

KS Great Bend ...................................... 114 3.2 1,082,020 1,983 546 

KS Hays ................................................. 166 28.9 2,164,041 18,068 120 

KS Liberal/Guymon ................................ 138 19.3 2,555,150 12,099 211 

KS Salina .............................................. 97 7.5 1,490,479 4,705 317 

KY Owensboro ....................................... 105 12.4 1,529,913 7,738 198 

KY Paducah ........................................... 146 63.8 2,034,160 39,962 51 

MD Hagerstown ...................................... 78 3.9 1,785,638 2,419 738 

ME Augusta/Waterville ........................... 58 17.9 1,362,616 11,222 121 

ME Bar Harbor ....................................... 157 16.3 1,631,223 10,190 160 

ME Presque Isle/Houlton ........................ 274 34.8 3,892,174 21,800 179 

ME Rockland .......................................... 76 23.5 1,420,545 14,704 97 

MI Alpena .............................................. 174 51.6 3,098,472 32,300 96 

MI Escanaba ......................................... 227 46.0 2,833,558 28,803 98 

MI Hancock/Houghton ........................... 321 80.0 690,976 50,103 14 

MI Iron Mountain/Kingsford .................. 229 30.0 2,512,971 18,766 134 

MI Ironwood/Ashland ............................ 213 8.1 1,747,326 5,066 345 

MI Manistee/Ludington ......................... 233 7.7 2,055,781 4,820 427 

MI Muskegon ......................................... 49 50.5 1,389,952 31,631 44 

MI Pellston ............................................ 213 84.5 1,077,413 52,925 20 

MI Sault Ste. Marie .............................. 347 67.3 1,765,393 42,130 42 

MN Bemidji ............................................ 128 70.6 1,118,050 44,220 25 

MN Brainerd ........................................... 123 46.5 1,356,764 29,108 47 

MN Chisholm/Hibbing ............................ 199 33.6 2,517,770 21,060 120 

MN International Falls ........................... 298 44.8 1,107,900 28,039 40 

MN Thief River Falls .............................. 305 6.9 1,881,815 4,323 435 

MO Cape Girardeau/Sikeston ................. 127 19.4 1,627,966 12,160 134 

MO Fort Leonard Wood ........................... 136 26.9 2,905,794 16,811 173 

MO Joplin ............................................... 167 75.2 342,560 47,095 7 

MO Kirksville .......................................... 137 18.1 1,649,248 11,357 145 

MS Greenville ......................................... 124 9.3 3,522,398 5,836 604 

MS Laurel/Hattiesburg ........................... 66 18.9 2,965,667 11,830 251 

MS Meridian ........................................... 84 21.6 2,417,808 13,552 178 

MS Tupelo .............................................. 94 18.3 3,522,398 11,438 308 

MT Butte ................................................ 75 82.9 735,956 51,920 14 

MT Glasgow ........................................... 285 6.5 2,046,800 4,057 1 n/a 

MT Glendive ........................................... 223 1.9 1,944,467 1,178 1 n/a 

MT Havre ............................................... 230 3.7 2,036,254 2,338 1 n/a 

MT Sidney .............................................. 272 29.4 3,777,579 18,405 1 n/a 

MT West Yellowstone ............................. 89 44.0 535,141 10,727 50 

MT Wolf Point ........................................ 293 8.7 2,145,326 5,473 1 n/a 

ND Devils Lake ...................................... 159 8.9 2,797,467 5,583 501 

ND Jamestown ....................................... 92 8.3 1,987,655 5,183 383 

NE Alliance ............................................ 233 5.2 1,309,865 3,229 406 

NE Chadron ........................................... 290 7.2 1,309,865 4,515 290 

NE Grand Island .................................... 138 71.5 1,837,021 44,781 41 

NE Kearney ............................................ 181 42.2 1,752,904 26,389 66 

NE McCook ............................................ 256 6.2 1,976,338 3,877 510 

NE North Platte ..................................... 255 26.7 1,697,510 16,690 102 

NE Scottsbluff ....................................... 192 30.4 1,398,351 19,032 73 

NH Lebanon/White River Jct. ................. 74 31.3 2,347,744 19,588 120 

NM Carlsbad .......................................... 149 8.6 1,397,081 5,364 260 

NM Clovis ............................................... 102 5.0 1,954,490 3,143 622 

NM Silver City/Hurley/Deming ................ 134 4.5 2,098,460 2,803 749 

NY Jamestown ....................................... 76 10.1 1,940,272 6,321 307 

NY Massena .......................................... 138 15.5 2,090,949 9,708 215 

NY Ogdensburg ..................................... 105 17.0 1,702,697 10,647 160 

NY Plattsburgh ...................................... 82 23.6 2,470,834 14,748 168 

NY Saranac Lake/Lake Placid ............... 132 16.9 1,832,064 10,552 174 

NY Watertown ........................................ 54 61.2 3,356,349 38,282 88 
23 

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 

12/31/12 

Subsidy per 

passenger at 

6/1/13 

OR Pendleton ......................................... 185 13.6 1,834,708 8,524 215 

PA Altoona ............................................. 112 12.5 1,998,594 7,830 255 

PA Bradford ........................................... 77 6.9 1,940,272 4,292 452 

PA DuBois ............................................. 112 15.6 2,587,029 9,793 264 

PA Franklin/Oil City ............................... 85 5.0 1,293,515 3,134 413 

PA Johnstown ........................................ 84 19.6 1,998,594 12,287 163 

PA Lancaster ......................................... 28 6.3 2,504,174 3,943 635 

PR Mayaguez ......................................... 105 17.3 1,198,824 10,802 111 

SD Aberdeen .......................................... 176 80.2 1,043,719 50,202 21 

SD Huron ............................................... 121 5.6 1,929,349 3,485 554 

SD Watertown ........................................ 102 14.2 1,710,324 8,872 193 

TN Jackson ............................................ 86 7.8 1,115,210 4,865 229 

TX Victoria ............................................ 93 10.4 2,294,036 6,518 352 

UT Cedar City ........................................ 179 37.9 2,317,439 23,716 98 

UT Moab ................................................ 256 13.8 2,303,347 8,635 267 

UT Vernal .............................................. 150 26.6 1,415,696 16,660 85 

VA Staunton .......................................... 113 45.1 3,394,629 28,203 120 

VT Rutland ............................................ 69 17.3 1,360,481 10,827 126 

WI Eau Claire ........................................ 92 62.5 1,546,536 39,104 40 

WI Rhinelander ..................................... 190 53.5 1,519,619 33,471 45 

WV Beckley ............................................. 168 12.0 2,512,494 7,502 335 

WV Clarksburg/Fairmont ........................ 96 18.8 1,728,125 11,784 147 

WV Greenbrier/W.Sulphur Sps ................ 162 21.9 3,484,710 13,698 254 

WV Morgantown ..................................... 75 32.6 1,728,125 20,381 85 

WV Parkersburg/Marietta ....................... 110 26.1 2,587,029 16,357 158 

WY Cody ................................................. 106 43.0 1,380,779 26,909 51 

WY Laramie ............................................ 145 35.3 1,635,346 22,085 74 

WY Worland ............................................ 161 8.9 1,987,148 5,589 356 

1 Cape Air began service at five Montana communities in December 2013, which is too recent for an accurate measurement of the subsidy per passenger. 

SAFE TRANSPORT OF OIL

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... $40,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The administration proposed a new appropriation to fund a 

multi-modal initiative to support prevention and response activities 

associated with the safe transportation of crude oil. The funds 

would be available for work conducted by the Federal Railroad Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The Administrators of those operating administrations and representatives 

from the Office of the Secretary would serve as a board that would 

make decisions on the use of the funding and would oversee its implementation. Funds also could be used to support collaborative efforts with other Federal departments and agencies, such as the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend providing a new appropriation for initiatives to improve the safety of crude oil transportation. 

The Committee has instead recommended funding through the reg-
24 

ular appropriations to the offices and agencies that conduct this 

work. 

The dramatic increase in domestic energy production in recent 

years has led to a rapid change in the demands on our transportation network. The vast and growing shipments of crude oil and 

ethanol by rail pose new challenges to the Department as it works 

to ensure the safe transportation of these hazardous materials in 

interstate commerce. To that end, the Committee recognizes the 

pressing need to increase the resources available to the Department to support activities related to research, regulations, oversight and enforcement. The Committee recommendation includes 

additional resources in the modal administrations targeted to research activities, inspectors, and training and awareness efforts to 

improve emergency response and safety. This funding will assist 

the Secretary in providing a comprehensive prevention, mitigation, 

and response safety strategy for the shipment of energy products. 

INTERAGENCY INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING IMPROVEMENT CENTER

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... $8,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administration proposed a new appropriation to fund the establishment and operation of an Interagency Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Center. The goals of the center would be to develop and implement reforms for the permitting and review of 

major infrastructure projects, develop and deploy information technology tools to track project schedules and metrics, and improve 

the transparency and accountability of the permitting process. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend providing a new appropriation for an Interagency Infrastructure Permitting Improvement 

Center. The Committee notes that the Department regularly undertakes activities to improve permitting and review processes, and 

the Committee expects the Department to continue its efforts to advance project delivery using its existing agencies and offices. The 

Committee has not yet seen evidence that a new center dedicated 

to these activities would improve the effectiveness of the Department’s efforts. Under current budgetary constraints, the Committee 

cannot afford to dedicate funding to a new center without more 

proof that it would significantly improve outcomes. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF

TRANSPORTATION

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

reprogramming of funds, including congressional notification. 

Section 102 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation or his 

designee to engage in activities with States and State legislatures 
25 

to consider proposals related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities. 

Section 103 allows the Department of Transportation to make 

use of the Working Capital Fund in providing transit benefits to 

Federal employees. 

Section 104 places simple administrative requirements on the 

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

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

minutes of each meeting. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for the safe 

movement of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system 

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

Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 

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

to navigation; arrange for research and development to improve 

such aids; issue airworthiness certificates for aircraft and major 

aircraft components; and investigate civil aviation accidents. In the 

Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, these activities were transferred to 

a new, independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority. 

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

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

Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] 

and became one of several modal administrations within DOT. The 

Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of 

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

Responsibility for the investigation of civil aviation accidents was 

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The total recommended funding level for the FAA for fiscal year 

2015 amounts to $15,860,450,000 including new budget authority 

and a limitation on the obligation of contract authority. This funding level is $580,000,000 more than the budget request and 

$126,420,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for fiscal year 2015 in comparison to the budget request and 

the fiscal year 2014 enacted level: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2014 enacted 2015 estimate 

Operations ................................................................................ $9,651,422,000 $9,750,000,000 $9,750,000,000 
26 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2014 enacted 2015 estimate 

Facilities and equipment ......................................................... 2,600,000,000 2,603,700,000 2,473,700,000 

Research, engineering, and development ............................... 158,792,000 156,750,000 156,750,000 

Grants-in-aid to airports (obligation limitation) ..................... 3,350,000,000 2,900,000,000 3,480,000,000 

Rescissions .............................................................................. ¥26,184,000 ¥130,000,000 ..............................

Total ............................................................................ 15,734,030,000 15,280,450,000 15,860,450,000 

OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $9,651,422,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 9,750,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

and development of standards, rules and regulations governing 

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

an aviation medical research program; 

—the office of commercial space transportation; and 

—headquarters and support offices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $9,750,000,000 for FAA 

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

$98,578,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The Committee recommendation derives $8,595,000,000 of the appropriation 

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

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

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

control system. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and fiscal year 2014 enacted level: 
27 

FAA OPERATIONS 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2014 enacted 2015 estimate 

Air traffic organization ............................................................ $7,311,790,000 $7,396,654,000 $7,396,654,000 

Aviation safety ......................................................................... 1,204,777,000 1,215,458,000 1,215,458,000 

Commercial space transportation ........................................... 16,011,000 16,605,000 16,605,000 

Finance and management ....................................................... 762,462,000 765,047,000 765,047,000 

NextGen operations and planning ........................................... 59,782,000 60,089,000 60,089,000 

Staff offices: 

Office of the Administrator ............................................. 4,017,000 4,049,000 4,049,000 

Office of audit and evaluation ....................................... 3,200,000 3,227,000 3,227,000 

Office of civil rights ....................................................... 11,868,000 11,940,000 11,940,000 

Government and industry affairs ................................... 1,530,000 1,541,000 1,400,000 

Office of communications ............................................... 6,003,000 6,056,000 6,056,000 

Office of the Chief Counsel ............................................ 44,190,000 44,772,000 44,772,000 

Office of policy, international affairs and environment ........................................................................... 33,630,000 33,579,000 33,720,000 

Human resources management ...................................... 103,490,000 101,195,000 101,195,000 

Office of security and hazardous materials safety ........ 88,672,000 89,788,000 89,788,000 

Subtotal ...................................................................... 296,600,000 296,147,000 296,147,000 

Total ............................................................................ 9,651,422,000 9,750,000,000 9,750,000,000 

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

believe that providing retention bonuses to the same employee for 

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

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

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

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

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

to the regular administrative requirements. The Committee is still 

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

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

2015. 

Contract Towers.—The Committee recommendation provides a total of $149,000,000 for the contract tower program, which includes $138,650,000 for the base program and $10,350,000 for the 

contract tower cost share program. This total funding level is sufficient to cover all towers that will be operating during fiscal year 

2015. The Committee also retains language that limits contributions in the contract tower cost share program to 20 percent of 

total costs. 

Critical Workforces of the FAA.—The Committee remains committed to FAA’s critical workforces, including air traffic controllers 

and aviation safety inspectors and technicians. The Committee recommendation fully funds the Administration’s request for the Air 

Traffic Organization and the Office of Aviation Safety, which will 

allow the FAA to maintain its critical workforces in fiscal year 

2015. 
28 

FAA’s New Process for Hiring Air Traffic Controllers.—This past 

December, the FAA announced that it would begin hiring additional air traffic controllers, and that it would use an entirely new 

process to fill those positions. Among its changes, the FAA decided 

that it would start a new competition, no longer using the list or 

‘‘inventory’’ of candidates that the agency had reviewed from prior 

job announcements; it would open the competition to the general 

public, whereas the agency had traditionally targeted its announcements to veterans or graduates of schools designed by the FAA as 

Collegiate Training Institutes [CTI]; and it would start using a new 

tool called the biographical questionnaire to screen its candidates. 

The Committee understands that the FAA’s new hiring policies 

are necessary to address important shortcomings in the way the 

agency had been hiring air traffic controllers. The old process did 

not appropriately apply veterans’ preference law, and it raised barriers against the FAA’s ability to hire a diverse group of new air 

traffic controllers. The Committee agrees that the FAA, as an agency of the Federal Government, should ensure that its hiring processes are open and fair for everyone. 

However, the FAA managed the change to its hiring process 

poorly. For many, the FAA’s announcement was unexpected and 

came suddenly. The FAA had dedicated several years to research 

and development for the new hiring process, and the agency had 

reached out to a variety of stakeholder groups who could help inform its decisions. Even so, as valuable as this effort was, the FAA 

never reached out to key participants in the aviation community, 

including controller candidates and CTI schools. Instead, the FAA 

announced its decision in the middle of a school year, issued its 

next job announcement immediately, and caused confusion among 

the very people who needed to navigate the new process. 

Furthermore, significant questions have been raised now that the 

FAA has conducted the biographical questionnaire for the first 

time. According to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, 

who worked closely with the FAA in developing its new hiring process, the agency had expected about 30 percent of its candidates to 

advance beyond the biographical questionnaire. Yet, less than 8 

percent have advanced beyond the questionnaire this year. Candidates who had applied for a controller position through a previous job announcement, taken the FAA’s technical skills test, and 

been told that they were considered ‘‘well qualified,’’ now find 

themselves being screened out by the biographical questionnaire. 

They are shaken by this experience because they feel that they had 

already proven their technical abilities, but they are now being 

screened out by a questionnaire that asks them, for example, to decide if other people would describe them as a person with great 

‘‘drive’’ or great ‘‘persistence.’’ 

The FAA has placed great confidence in its new hiring process, 

arguing that it will lead to more open and fair competition. The 

Committee, however, is concerned that confusion about the new 

process and the role of the biographical questionnaire has detracted 

from this year’s recruiting effort. 

The Committee has included a new provision in its bill language 

to ensure that the FAA’s new hiring process truly gives every applicant the ability to compete openly and fairly for a job as an air 
29 

traffic controller. This year’s process may have been marked by 

confusion, but the Committee believes that applicants should be 

held harmless from the FAA’s inability to manage the transition to 

the new hiring process. The bill clarifies that any person who held 

a position on the FAA’s ‘‘inventory’’ of qualified candidates from 

previous job announcements can apply for a position as an air traffic controller during fiscal year 2015, even if they turned 31 years 

old and aged out of the process during this past year. 

In addition, the Committee expects that in the future FAA will 

consider its partnership with CTI schools more seriously, and invite their input when contemplating significant policy changes that 

would affect their students. 

Aircraft Certification Process Review and Reform.—The Committee continues to be keenly interested in FAA’s progress toward 

implementing section 312 of the FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act of 2012, which requires the FAA to develop a more streamlined 

certification process. An aviation rulemaking committee [ARC], 

with representatives from both FAA and the aviation industry, 

issued its recommendations on May 22, 2012. The recommendations included expanding the use of FAA’s delegated authority and 

a risk-based, systems safety approach to its oversight. FAA must 

now face a far more challenging task of implementing those recommendations, and measuring the effectiveness of its efforts. 

It is essential for FAA to document its progress to the Committee 

and other aviation stakeholders. The Committee therefore directs 

FAA to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report no later than April 3, 2015, on the measures of effectiveness that FAA is applying to its work in implementing the 

ARC’s recommendations. The report should detail the measures of 

effectiveness and the extent to which they track FAA’s progress, including the agency’s progress in relying more fully on delegated authorities and toward a systems safety approach; how regularly the 

FAA will collect this data and how it will be used to improve FAA’s 

process over time; the extent to which FAA has modified its personnel expectations and its training course content to communicate 

changes to field offices; and the extent to which ARC members 

were consulted in drafting the measures of effectiveness. 

FAA’s success in streamlining its certification process relies on 

the agency’s workforce of trained inspectors, engineers and specialists. The Committee directs the FAA to include in its annual aviation safety workforce plan a section devoted to the actions undertaken and planned by the agency to further enhance aircraft certification workforce skills and training. 

The Committee also expects FAA to continue its efforts to educate and coordinate with other international aviation authorities 

about its certification process. These efforts are consistent with the 

FAA’s strategic plan, and they are critical to FAA’s ability to 

streamline and enhance the validation and acceptance of FAA certifications globally. 

Finally, the Committee expects the FAA to use the resources provided in its recommendation to support the completion of a final 

rule that advances the safety and continued development of small 

airplanes, as required by the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 

2013. 
30 

Consistency of Regulatory Interpretation.—Section 313 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires FAA to improve 

how consistently its offices and field locations enforce agency regulations. An aviation rulemaking committee developed recommendations on this issue and issued its report on November 28, 2012. As 

with FAA’s work on certification streamlining, the agency must 

now face the challenge of implementing the recommendations. 

The Committee is acutely interested in the FAA’s progress toward improving the consistency of its regulatory interpretation, but 

remains concerned about the current state of affairs. Recently, for 

example, an airline that interacts with flight standards district offices in Seattle, Washington, as well as Juneau and Anchorage, 

Alaska, reported startling differences in how these offices treated 

the same situation. The airline had voluntarily raised a concern 

documentation related to its aircraft. The offices in Alaska worked 

closely with several airlines to fix the issue, knowing that it did not 

have any safety implications. In contrast, the office in Seattle 

issued a formal letter of investigation that threatened regulatory 

action against the airline, which would have resulted in grounding 

its fleet. 

Even more startling was the reaction of managers at the Seattle 

office when the airline suggested that its working relationship with 

the Alaska offices could be a model for addressing similar issues in 

the future. The airline was told that each flight standards district 

office works independently and has no relationship with the other 

offices. This assertion is true only to the extent that each district 

office has the authority to conduct its own oversight, but completely ignores the fact that each office works on behalf of the FAA 

and must conduct its work accordingly. 

As this incident shows, there are significant differences among 

field offices in their workplace culture and their understanding of 

how to use best practices when enforcing FAA policy and regulations, as well as a large gap between field offices and FAA headquarters. The Committee therefore directs the FAA to include a 

section in its annual aviation safety workforce plan devoted to the 

actions undertaken and planned by the agency to improve the consistency of its regulatory interpretations. 

Air Traffic Control Optimum Training Solution.—To protect the 

safety of the national airspace, the FAA must maintain a full workforce of trained air traffic controllers. According to the FAA’s current Controller Workforce Plan, the agency will hire 10,031 air 

traffic controllers over the next 9 years. The FAA needs an effective 

strategy for training all of these controllers. 

In September 2008, the FAA awarded the Air Traffic Control Optimum Training Solution [ATCOTS] contract to provide up to 10 

years of controller training. The FAA claimed that the ATCOTS 

program would modernize how the agency trained its air traffic 

controllers, reducing the time it took to train each controller and 

the total cost of controller training. The ATCOTS contract included 

provisions that were supposed to encourage the contractor to develop training innovations. 

In reality, ATCOTS has not produced results. The program resulted in cost overruns each year over the first 4 years, racking up 

about $89,000,000 in additional expenses and exhausting the pro-
31 

gram’s base level of funding a year ahead of time. The additional 

spending, however, was not buying the FAA a more efficient training program. Over the fiscal year 2009–2012 period, the amount of 

time needed to certify controllers increased by an average of 41 

percent. That is, under the ATCOTS program, it took an average 

of 9 months longer to certify each air traffic controller. Running out 

of room under its ATCOTS budget, the FAA exercised the contract’s first extension a year in advance, lengthening the contract 

by 3 years. FAA has improved its oversight of the contract, but according to a report issued by the Inspector General in December 

2013, the agency still has not adequately defined its requirements 

or fully identified training costs. 

Since last November, this Committee has been asking for a briefing from the FAA that would cover the status of the ATCOTS program, the program’s procurement schedule, and the agency’s strategy for improving the program’s performance. The FAA has been 

unwilling or unable to provide this briefing, and the FAA’s unwillingness to discuss the status of ATCOTS reflects poorly on agency’s 

ability to manage the program. 

The Committee directs the FAA to provide the requested briefing 

to staff members for the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations immediately. In addition, given the long history of briefing requests, the Committee turns to the Office of Inspector General [OIG] to provide further insight into the FAA’s ability to estimate the cost of the ATCOTS program, and the FAA’s strategy for 

managing this program after the current contract period. The Committee directs the OIG to submit an update to the December 2013 

report on the ATCOTS program no later than 6 months after enactment of this act. 

Pilot Records Database.—The Committee directs FAA to continue 

implementing section 203 of the Airline Safety Act of 2010, which 

requires the agency to create a pilot records database. This database will contain various types of pilot records that air carriers will 

use to perform a record check on pilots before making hiring decisions. The FAA has encountered significant obstacles in collecting 

and collating many years’ worth of industry records and developing 

a software database. The Committee recognizes the difficulty of 

these obstacles, but remains concerned with the pace of the rulemaking. The Committee directs the FAA to provide a letter report 

on its progress in meeting the requirements of section 203 to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 

March 2, 2015. 

FAA’s Telecommunications.—The executive branch has issued an 

order allowing commercial telecommunication carriers to test the 

transition from time-division multiplexed [TDM] circuit switched 

voice services to Internet protocol [IP] networks. This transition 

from TDM to IP could have a significant impact on the FAA because 92 percent of the agency’s telecommunications services are 

TDM-based. FAA is working with its telecommunications service 

provider and the Federal Communications Commission to ensure 

that FAA operations are not disrupted by this transition. FAA also 

recognizes the need for a long-term plan that is consistent with its 

effort to modernize the air traffic control system. The Committee 

directs FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on Ap-
32 

propriations no later than March 31, 2015, on the status of its investment analysis of the transition to IP services. 

Public Comment Periods.—The Committee recognizes the critical 

role of public comment periods on FAA’s rulemaking proceedings 

and the agency’s non-rulemaking activities related to special use 

airspace. These efforts could affect a significant portion of the public, and full and fair public comment periods improve transparency 

and confidence among stakeholders that the FAA will take all 

views into account. The Committee, however, is concerned that the 

FAA has failed to take meaningful steps to improve transparency 

in its rulemaking process. To ensure the public’s ability to submit 

comments on actions being considered by the FAA, it is important 

to make electronic submissions available, especially as many individuals have shifted toward providing comments to the Federal 

Government through the Internet. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to update its procedures for handling airspace matters to ensure an online venue is available for comment submission 

on all public comment solicitations, including solicitations on special use airspace non-rulemaking circulars. 

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

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

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

previously made these products available for download from its 

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

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

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

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

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

With these concerns in mind, the Committee continues to include 

bill language that prohibits AeroNav from implementing new 

charges on AeroNav products until the FAA provides the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report that describes 

(1) the estimated cost of producing only its digital products, on a 

product-by-product basis (for example, delineating costs for electronic navigation charts and vector charts separately), for use on 

computers, tablets, and other displays; (2) the cost of producing 

both digital products and paper products, on a product-by-product 

basis; (3) safety and operational benefits of using digital products; 

and (4) how AeroNav’s actions conflict with the direction in Executive Order 13642 to support open data for entrepreneurship, innovation, and scientific discovery. 

FAA Public Hearing.—The Committee remains concerned with 

the proposed modifications to the Condor 1 and Condor 2 military 

operating areas and encourages FAA to continue working with its 

partner agencies by holding a public hearing with representatives 

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

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

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

sought to meet the minimum legal requirements for public partici-
33 

pation and comment. However, the Committee remains troubled 

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

proposed airspace would affect areas that significantly contribute to 

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

the only Federal agency that can modify special airspace and that 

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

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

regarding the modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 military 

operations areas that includes a summary of any public meeting 

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

presented at these meetings and hearings. 

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

appropriate and consistent with criteria specified in the law, the 

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

law. The Committee encourages the FAA to consider whether UAS 

test sites may be appropriate in assisting the Secretary in making 

determinations under section 333. The Committee also urges the 

FAA to communicate clearly with the UAS industry regarding its 

priorities for section 333 consideration. 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $2,600,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 2,603,700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,473,700,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Facilities and Equipment appropriation provides funding for 

modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway facilities, 

equipment, and systems. The appropriation also finances major 

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

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

demands of aeronautical activity and remain in accordance with 

the Federal Aviation Administration’s comprehensive 5-year capital 

investment plan [CIP]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,473,700,000 

for the Facilities and Equipment account of the Federal Aviation 

Administration. The recommended level is $130,000,000 less than 

the budget request and $126,300,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 

enacted level. In addition, the Committee recommendation increases the obligation limitation of the grants-in-aid for airports 

program by $130,000,000 and sets aside this funding for FAA facilities and equipment that are located on airport property, bringing 

the total amount of funding for facilities and equipment under the 
34 

Committee recommendation to a level equal to the President’s 

budget request. This provision is discussed in more depth under 

the heading for grants-in-aid to airports. 

Capital Investment Plan.—For the past 2 years, the FAA has 

failed to produce its annual capital investment plan in a timely 

manner. The appropriations laws for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 required the FAA to issue its next plan with the Administration’s 

submission of its budget request. The fiscal year 2013 plan was not 

submitted to Congress until August, 6 months after the deadline, 

and the fiscal year 2014 plan has not yet been submitted. The 

Committee therefore has included a new provision in its bill language that would lower the appropriation for FAA’s facilities and 

equipment by $100,000 for each day after the submission of the fiscal year 2016 budget request that the plan has not been submitted 

to Congress. 

Budget Activities Format.—The Committee directs that the fiscal 

year 2016 budget request for the Facilities and Equipment account 

conform to the same organizational structure of budget activities as 

displayed below. 

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

appropriation and by resources provided under grants-in-aid to airports: 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2014 enacted 2015 estimate 

Activity 1—Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation: 

Advanced technology development and prototyping ...... $32,000,000 $29,900,000 $29,900,000 

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

William J. Hughes Technical Center facilities ................ 11,000,000 12,049,000 12,049,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center infrastructure 

sustainment ................................................................ 5,000,000 12,200,000 12,200,000 

Data communications in support of NextGen ................ 115,450,000 .............................. ..............................

NextGen—Demonstrations and infrastructure development ........................................................................... 20,000,000 .............................. ..............................

NextGen—Systems development .................................... 58,075,883 .............................. ..............................

NextGen—Trajectory based operations .......................... 15,988,063 .............................. ..............................

NextGen—Reduce weather impact ................................. 2,729,354 .............................. ..............................

NextGen—High density/arrivals/departures ................... 5,484,247 .............................. ..............................

NextGen—Collaborative ATM .......................................... 20,250,589 .............................. ..............................

NextGen—Flexible terminals and airports ..................... 12,923,385 .............................. ..............................

NextGen—System network facilities .............................. 5,094,032 .............................. ..............................

NextGen—Future facilities ............................................. 10,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Performance based navigation/RNAV/RNP ..................... 32,200,000 .............................. ..............................

NextGen—Separation management ............................... .............................. 13,000,000 13,000,000 

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

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

NextGen—Environment ................................................... .............................. 2,500,000 5,500,000 

NextGen—Improved multiple runway operations ........... .............................. 3,500,000 3,500,000 

NextGen—NAS infrastructure ......................................... .............................. 13,480,000 13,480,000 

NextGen—Support .......................................................... .............................. 13,000,000 13,000,000 

NextGen—Performance based navigation and 

metroplex .................................................................... .............................. 25,500,000 25,500,000 

Activity 2—Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment: 

a. En Route Programs: 

En route automation modernization [ERAM] .................. 66,800,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 

En route automation modernization [ERAM]—system 

enhancements and tech refresh ................................ 35,000,000 45,200,000 45,200,000 
35 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2014 enacted 2015 estimate 

En route communications gateway [ECG] ...................... 2,200,000 6,600,000 6,600,000 

Next generation weather radar [NEXRAD]—provide ...... 4,100,000 7,100,000 7,100,000 

ARTCC building improvements/plant improvements ...... 45,160,377 63,700,000 60,000,000 

Air traffic management [ATM] ........................................ 13,800,000 5,729,000 5,729,000 

Air/ground communications infrastructure ..................... 5,500,000 3,900,000 3,900,000 

Air traffic control en route radar facilities improvements .......................................................................... 5,900,000 5,100,000 5,100,000 

Voice switching and control system [VSCS] .................. 19,000,000 13,800,000 13,800,000 

Oceanic automation system ........................................... 4,800,000 3,508,000 3,508,000 

Next generation very high frequency air/ground comm 

[NEXCOM] ................................................................... 20,250,000 40,000,000 40,000,000 

Systemwide information management ........................... 66,550,000 60,261,000 60,261,000 

ADS–B NAS-wide implementation .................................. 282,100,400 247,200,000 257,200,000 

Windshear detection service ........................................... 2,000,000 4,300,000 4,300,000 

Weather and radar processor [WARP] ............................ 700,000 .............................. ..............................

Collaborative air traffic management technologies WP2 

& WP3 ......................................................................... 28,200,000 13,491,000 13,491,000 

Colorado ADS–B/WAM cost share ................................... 3,400,000 .............................. ..............................

Time based flow management ....................................... 10,500,000 21,000,000 21,000,000 

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

NextGen weather processors ........................................... 11,475,000 23,320,000 23,320,000 

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

Data communications in support of NextGen ................ .............................. 147,340,000 150,340,000 

b. Terminal Programs: 

Airport Surface Detection Equipment—Model X [ASDE– 

X] ................................................................................ 12,100,000 5,436,000 5,436,000 

Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR]—provide ........ 3,600,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 

Standard terminal automation replacement system 

[STARS] (TAMR Phase 1) ............................................ 45,500,000 50,700,000 50,700,000 

Terminal automation modernization/replacement program (TAMR Phase 3) ................................................ 155,550,000 136,150,000 136,150,000 

Terminal automation program ........................................ 2,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 

Terminal air traffic control facilities—replace 1 ........... 69,000,000 29,800,000 58,800,000 

ATCT/Terminal radar approach control [TRACON] facilities—improve 1 .......................................................... 48,228,833 45,040,000 45,040,000 

Terminal voice switch replacement [TVSR] .................... 5,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 

NAS facilities OSHA and environmental standards 

compliance ................................................................. 21,000,000 43,501,000 40,000,000 

Airport surveillance radar [ASR–9] ................................ 10,900,000 13,600,000 13,600,000 

Terminal digital radar [ASR–11] tech refresh and mobile airport surveillance radar [MASR] ...................... 19,400,000 21,100,000 21,100,000 

Runway status lights 1 ................................................... 35,250,000 41,710,000 41,710,000 

National airspace system voice system [NVS] ............... 16,000,000 20,550,000 20,550,000 

Integrated display system [IDS] ..................................... 4,100,000 16,917,000 16,917,000 

Remote monitoring and logging system [RMLS] ............ 1,000,000 3,930,000 3,930,000 

Mode S service life extension program [SLEP] .............. 7,300,000 8,100,000 8,100,000 

Surveillance interface modernization ............................. 6,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Tower flight data manager [TFDM] ................................ 19,250,000 .............................. ..............................

Voice recorder replacement program [VRRP] ................. 6,200,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Precision runway monitor [PRM] .................................... 5,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Integrated terminal weather system [ITWS] ................... 1,300,000 4,400,000 4,400,000 

c. Flight Service Programs: 

Aviation surface observation system [ASOS] ................. 10,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 

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

Alaska flight service facility modernization [AFSFM] ..... 1,500,000 2,800,000 2,800,000 

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

d. Landing and Navigational Aids Program: 

VHF Omnidirectional radio range [VOR] with distance 

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

Instrument landing system [ILS]—establish 1 .............. 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 

Wide area augmentation system [WAAS] for GPS .......... 84,000,000 103,600,000 103,600,000 
36 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2014 enacted 2015 estimate 

Runway visual range [RVR] and enhanced low visibility operations [ELVO] 1 ........................................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 7,500,000 

Approach lighting system improvement program 

[ALSIP] 1 ...................................................................... 3,500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Distance measuring equipment [DME] ........................... 4,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Visual NAVAIDS—establish/expand ................................ 2,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Instrument flight procedures automation [IFPA] ............ 4,500,000 2,400,000 2,400,000 

Navigation and landing aids—service life extension 

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

VASI Replacement—replace with precision approach 

path indicator 1 .......................................................... 2,500,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 

GPS Civil requirements ................................................... 6,000,000 27,000,000 10,000,000 

Runway safety areas—navigational mitigation 1 .......... 38,000,000 35,000,000 35,000,000 

e. Other ATC Facilities Programs: 

Fuel storage tank replacement and management ......... 8,700,000 15,500,000 15,500,000 

Unstaffed infrastructure sustainment ............................ 20,000,000 32,300,000 32,300,000 

Aircraft related equipment program ............................... 10,400,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 

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

Alaskan satellite telecommunications infrastructure 

[ASTI] .......................................................................... 8,500,000 11,400,000 11,400,000 

Facilities decommissioning ............................................. 6,500,000 5,700,000 5,700,000 

Electrical power systems—sustain/support ................... 68,075,000 102,000,000 86,701,000 

FAA Employee housing and life safety shelter system 

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

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

Activity 3—Nonair Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment: 

a. Support Equipment: 

Hazardous materials management ................................. 18,500,000 22,000,000 22,000,000 

Aviation safety analysis system [ASAS] ......................... 12,700,000 11,900,000 11,900,000 

Logistics support systems and facilities [LSSF] ............ 10,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 

National airspace [NAS] recovery communications 

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

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

Information security ........................................................ 13,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 

System approach for safety oversight [SASO] ............... 12,500,000 22,500,000 22,500,000 

Aviation safety knowledge management environment 

[ASKME] ...................................................................... 12,200,000 10,200,000 10,200,000 

Data center optimization ................................................ 1,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Aerospace medical equipment needs [AMEN] ................ 5,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Aviation safety information analysis and sharing 

[ASIAS] ........................................................................ 15,000,000 .............................. ..............................

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

National test equipment program .................................. 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Mobile assets management program ............................. 3,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Aerospace medicine safety information systems 

[AMSIS] ....................................................................... 3,900,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

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

b. Training, Equipment and Facilities: 

Aeronautical center infrastructure modernization .......... 9,000,000 13,180,000 13,180,000 

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

Activity 4—Facilities and Equipment Mission Support: 

a. System Support and Services: 

System engineering and development support .............. 34,314,837 34,504,000 34,504,000 

Program support leases .................................................. 42,100,000 43,200,000 43,200,000 

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

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center leases .................... 17,900,000 18,350,000 18,350,000 

Transition engineering support ....................................... 16,500,000 16,596,000 16,596,000 

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

Resource tracking program [RTP] .................................. 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 
37 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2014 enacted 2015 estimate 

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development 

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

Aeronautical information management program ........... 9,050,000 12,650,000 12,650,000 

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

Activity 5—Personnel and Related Expenses ......................... 450,250,000 463,000,000 456,000,000 

Reduction for programs paid out of grants-in-aid to 

airports ....................................................................... .............................. .............................. ¥130,000,000 

Total resources provided under this appropriation .................................................................... 2,600,000,000 2,603,700,000 2,473,700,000 

1 These programs may include amounts from grants-in-aid to airports in fiscal year 2015. 

NextGen—Environment.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,500,000 for the NextGen—Environment portfolio, an increase of $3,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommends this additional funding to support the Continuous Low 

Energy, Emissions and Noise [CLEEN] program, in which the FAA 

partners with the aviation industry to develop and test aircraft 

technologies that reduce noise, emissions and fuel burn. The Committee recommendation also includes an additional $2,000,000 

above the budget request for the CLEEN program in the appropriation for FAA’s research, engineering and development activities. In 

total, the Committee recommendation provides $21,200,000 for the 

CLEEN program, an increase of $5,000,000 above the budget request. 

En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM].—Under the ERAM 

program, the FAA is replacing the computer system it uses to manage high-altitude air traffic. Modernizing this network is critical to 

the effective management of air traffic, and the program is essential to moving the FAA into the next generation of air traffic control. Although the FAA has improved its management of ERAM, 

addressing many of the concerns that led to significant cost increases and schedule delays early in its schedule, the program is 

still subject to risk. The Committee recommendation includes 

$10,500,000 for ERAM, which is equal to the budget request and 

$56,300,000 lower than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The FAA 

has asserted that its budget request for fiscal year 2015 represents 

the final installment in the program’s base budget, and the Committee does not expect to see a funding request for this activity in 

the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2016. 

ADS–B NAS-Wide Implementation.—The FAA is currently replacing its radar-based air traffic control system with satellite technology under the Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast 

[ADS–B] program. ADS–B uses GPS signals to transmit an aircraft’s location to receivers installed on the ground throughout the 

United States. The ground receivers transmit that information to 

air traffic controller screens and flight deck displays on any aircraft 

equipped with the appropriate avionics. Using ADS–B will improve 

the safety and efficiency of the national airspace, and it is a 

foundational program of the FAA’s NextGen effort to modernize our 

air traffic control system. The Committee recommendation therefore includes $257,200,000 for the implementation of ADS–B across 
38 

the national airspace, which is $10,000,000 more than the budget 

request and $24,900,400 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted 

level. 

However, replacing radar technology with ADS–B throughout our 

national airspace requires the use of ground receivers, and so the 

FAA’s current program will not improve surveillance of the airspace over oceans or in remote areas that lack radar coverage. A 

system of satellite communications has become available that 

would extend the use of ADS–B over oceanic airspace and other remote areas. Because the FAA manages a large portion of oceanic 

airspace, the Committee believes that satellite-based ADS–B represents an important opportunity for the agency. This project 

would allow the FAA to improve the flow of air traffic across oceanic airspace, reducing fuel consumption and emissions. FAA’s involvement would also protect the agency’s leadership position in 

aviation across the globe. 

The FAA has considered this opportunity, but has not yet made 

an investment decision. For this reason, the Committee directs the 

FAA to make an investment decision regarding satellite-based 

ADS–B no later than 30 days after enactment of this act in order 

to address the Committee’s concern that the agency’s absence from 

the program is undermining its status as a global safety and technology leader, and limiting its ability to fully promote NextGen. 

Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program 

[TAMR Phase 3].—Under the TAMR program, the FAA is replacing 

the computer system used in facilities that manage air traffic coming into and leaving airports. Like ERAM, the TAMR program is 

essential for the FAA to move forward with its effort to modernize 

the air traffic control system. 

Unfortunately, also like ERAM, TAMR has a history of cost overruns and schedule delays. The Committee provided additional 

funding for fiscal year 2014 to help TAMR recover from disruptions 

caused by the temporary furlough of FAA employees after the fiscal 

year 2013 sequestration. Most of the program’s difficulties, however, stem from more significant problems. Last May, the Inspector 

General issued a report on TAMR that questioned whether the 

FAA had developed a reliable schedule and budget for the program. 

He asserted that the FAA did not complete all of the risk assessments required by its own acquisition management system before 

approving the program schedule, and that the FAA ignored important elements of the program when it approved the program’s cost 

baseline. 

The TAMR program has recently kept within the current baseline for its budget and schedule, but too often the Committee has 

been reassured that a program is making good progress not long 

before the FAA significantly increases the budget or lengthens the 

schedule. Addressing such adjustments to the TAMR baseline 

would be increasingly difficult in today’s fiscal environment. 

The Committee recommendation includes $136,150,000 for 

TAMR, which is equal to the budget request and $19,400,000 less 

than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. Because this funding level 

is consistent with the budget request, and does not include a funding increase for TAMR, the Committee recommendation can also 

accommodate many of the other funding levels in the budget re-
39 

quest for the FAA’s facilities and equipment. Facing tight budget 

constraints, the Committee cannot expect to provide funding increases for one program without making offsetting cuts to other activities within the FAA budget. 

Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities—Replace.—The Committee recommends $58,800,000 for the replacement of air traffic 

control facilities that manage terminal airspace, including air traffic control towers and terminal radar approach control facilities 

[TRACONs]. This funding level is $29,000,000 above the budget request and $10,200,000 below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The 

Committee recommendation includes this additional funding to ensure that budgetary constraints for fiscal year 2015 do not cause 

any of the projects to experience construction delays, which could 

add significantly to a project’s total cost over the long term. 

Enhanced Low Visibility Operations.—The Committee recommendation includes $7,500,000 for runway visual range and enhanced low visibility operations, an increase of $1,500,000 above 

the budget request and the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The 

Committee recommends this funding increase to support enhanced 

low visibility operations, and directs the FAA to use the funding for 

advanced aircraft and airport navigation safety equipment for airports serving remote communities that rely on aviation for basic 

transportation needs and cannot afford to allow weather conditions 

to interrupt air operations. 

FAA Management Training and Conference Center.—The Committee continues to recommend that the FAA continue to pursue 

new leased space for its Management Training and Conference 

Center. A significant amount of both private and public resources 

have been committed to this procurement process. The Committee 

recognizes that a best value acquisition will result in continuing 

the preceding procurement process as the FAA’s long-term need for 

such a facility remains. The Committee, in understanding both the 

FAA’s long-term needs and costs of remaining in the current, temporary facility, recognizes that it is appropriate to not only continue with the procurement, but that doing so is consistent with 

the recently enacted FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $158,792,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 156,750,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 156,750,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

programs to improve the air traffic control system by increasing its 

safety and capacity, as well as reducing the environmental impacts 

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

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

and to promote flight safety through improvements in facilities, 
40 

equipment, techniques, and procedures to ensure that the system 

will safely and efficiently handle future volumes of aircraft traffic. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $156,750,000 for the FAA’s research, engineering, and development activities. The recommended 

level of funding is equal to the budget request and $2,042,000 less 

than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

A table showing the fiscal year 2014 enacted level, the fiscal year 

2015 budget estimate and the Committee recommendation follows: 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2014 enacted 2015 estimate 

Safety: 

Fire research and safety ................................................................... $8,000,000 $6,929,000 $6,000,000 

Propulsion and fuel systems ............................................................ 1,800,000 2,413,000 2,000,000 

Advanced materials/structural safety .............................................. 2,600,000 2,909,000 2,909,000 

Aircraft icing /digital system safety ................................................ 7,500,000 5,889,000 5,500,000 

Continued airworthiness ................................................................... 8,000,000 9,619,000 9,619,000 

Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research ............................ 1,500,000 1,567,000 1,500,000 

Flightdeck/maintenance/system integration human factors ............ 5,000,000 9,897,000 8,500,000 

System safety management ............................................................. 11,000,000 7,970,000 7,970,000 

Air traffic control/technical operations human factors ................... 5,000,000 5,898,000 5,400,000 

Aeromedical research ........................................................................ 7,000,000 8,919,000 8,300,000 

Weather program .............................................................................. 14,200,000 17,800,000 15,847,000 

Unmanned aircraft systems research .............................................. 8,644,000 8,974,000 12,974,000 

NextGen—Alternative fuels for general aviation ............................. 6,000,000 5,700,000 6,000,000 

NextGen—Advanced system and software validation ..................... 1,000,000 ........................ ........................

Economic competitiveness: 

NextGen—Wake turbulence .............................................................. 9,000,000 8,541,000 8,541,000 

NextGen—Air ground integration human factors ............................ 11,329,000 9,697,000 9,697,000 

NextGen—Weather technology in the cockpit .................................. 4,000,000 4,048,000 4,048,000 

Environmental sustainability: 

Environment and energy ................................................................... 14,600,000 14,921,000 14,921,000 

NextGen—Environmental research aircraft technologies, fuels, 

and metrics .................................................................................. 26,979,000 19,514,000 21,514,000 

Mission support: 

System planning and resource management ................................... 2,200,000 2,135,000 2,100,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center ................................................. 3,440,000 3,410,000 3,410,000 

Total .............................................................................................. 158,792,000 156,750,000 156,750,000 

Unmanned Aerial Systems Research—Center of Excellence.—The 

Committee recommendation includes $12,974,000 for unmanned 

aircraft systems research, an increase of $4,000,000 above the 

budget request and $4,330,000 above the fiscal year 2014 enacted 

level. The administration’s request includes $1,000,000 for a new 

center of excellence on unmanned aircraft systems [UAS], but given 

its importance, the Committee directs the FAA to dedicate the full 

funding increase to the center, which would receive a total of 

$5,000,000 under the Committee recommendation. 

The Committee is pleased with the Department’s progress in establishing a UAS center of excellence to address a host of research 

challenges associated with integration of UAS into the national airspace. The formation of a UAS center of excellence is essential to 

meet the requirements enacted as part of the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012. The Committee directs that when the FAA 

selects candidates for the center, the agency shall consider a geo-
41 

graphically and climatically diverse team of academic institutions 

with proven track records in unmanned aircraft systems engineering and certification, airspace integration, aviation modeling and 

simulation, UAS policy, UAS training and pilot certification, and 

collaboration with partners in the UAS industry. As cyber security 

is of paramount importance to safe UAS operations, the FAA 

should pay particular attention to teams with National Security 

Administration and Department of Homeland Security cyber education, research and operations certifications. Candidates should be 

well integrated with the FAA UAS test sites, with emphasis on 

teams that have the capacity to research beyond line of sight small 

UAS operations. Candidates should have close relations with disaster response agencies, the Department of Homeland Security and 

the Department of Agriculture in order to facilitate research into 

key UAS mission areas, such as environmental monitoring, weather and hydrologic prediction, precision agriculture, law enforcement, disaster response and oil transportation systems monitoring. 

Unmanned Aerial Systems Research—Strategic Plan for Research.—In order to support the integration of UAS into the national airspace, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 required the FAA to work with other Federal agencies and representatives from the aviation industry on a comprehensive plan that 

would include a timeline for the necessary research and regulations. The law also required the FAA to write its own roadmap for 

integrating UAS into the national airspace, to update this roadmap 

each year, and to designate six test sites that will collect data and 

conduct research. 

Although the FAA has completed each of these requirements, the 

Committee remains concerned that the FAA has not yet shown details on how its research will directly lead to better UAS integration. The first edition of FAA’s roadmap, entitled the ‘‘Integration 

of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems [UAS] in the National Airspace System [NAS] Roadmap,’’ contains no discussion on what 

specific questions need to be answered before integrating UAS into 

the national airspace, what research projects would answer those 

questions, or which data are necessary to support that research. 

Importantly, the roadmap does not provide a strategy on how the 

test sites will participate in these efforts. 

The Committee understands that the new UAS center of excellence can perform a vital role in coordinating with each of the test 

sites and filling research gaps for the FAA. However, the Committee believes that the FAA must direct the strategy itself. 

The Committee therefore directs the FAA to include a strategic 

plan on research efforts as part of its next edition of the roadmap. 

The roadmap shall include a section that discusses the specific research needs to safely integrate UAS into the NAS, including an 

examination of the research goals that the FAA must reach in 

order to successfully and safety advance NAS integration; FAA’s 

strategy to obtain the identified research through partnerships 

with other Federal agencies, the UAS center of excellence, participants in the UAS and aviation industry, and the UAS test sites; 

and an evaluation of the ability of the UAS test sites to coordinate 

with the FAA and its center of excellence, and participate in the 
42 

FAA’s strategy, and help achieve the research goals identified in 

the roadmap. 

Unmanned Aerial Systems Research—Coordination with Other 

Agencies.—Both the U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP] 

and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] 

research and develop UAS technologies. The Committee therefore 

encourages the FAA to leverage these research and development efforts as it integrates UAS into the national airspace. The Committee expects the FAA to use the resources provided for UAS research under the Committee recommendation to collect and evaluate data and information from CBP and NASA UAS projects, and 

to collaborate with these partners on research efforts necessary to 

integrate UAS into the national airspace. The Committee also encourages the FAA to study how the Air Force conducts routine UAS 

operations, including the safe takeoff and landing of multiple platforms in a short period of time, as part of its airspace integration 

efforts. 

Alternative Fuels for General Aviation.—The Committee recommendation includes $6,000,000 for research that supports alternative fuels for general aviation. This funding level is $300,000 

above the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted 

level. 

NextGen—Environmental Research—Aircraft Technologies, Fuels, 

and Metrics.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$21,514,000 for NextGen environmental research. This funding 

level is $2,000,000 above the budget request and $5,465,000 below 

the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The Committee recommendation 

provides funding above the budget request to support the Continuous Low Energy, Emissions and Noise [CLEEN] program. Under 

the CLEEN program, the FAA partners with the aviation industry 

to develop and test aircraft technologies that reduce noise, emissions and fuel burn. The Committee recommendation also includes 

an additional $3,000,000 above the budget request for the CLEEN 

program in the appropriation for FAA’s facilities and equipment. In 

total, the Committee recommendation provides $21,200,000 for the 

CLEEN program, an increase of $5,000,000 above the budget request. 

National Center for Advanced Materials Performance.—The FAA 

has effectively partnered with the National Center for Advanced 

Materials Performance [NCAMP] on mutually beneficial initiatives 

that reduce Federal spending and improve FAA standardization for 

aviation oversight. The Committee believes that NCAMP will similarly contribute to future initiatives within the National Network 

for Manufacturing Innovation [NNMI] enterprise, and as such, the 

Committee encourages the FAA to recommend adding NCAMP to 

the NNMI framework. 
43 

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 2014 enacted 2015 estimate 

Resources from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund: 

Limitation on obligations ................................................ $3,350,000,000 $2,900,000,000 $3,480,000,000 

Liquidation of contract authorization ............................. 3,200,000,000 3,200,000,000 3,200,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Funding for grants-in-aid to airports pays for capital improvements at the Nation’s airports, including those investments that 

emphasize capacity development, safety improvements, and security needs. Other priority areas for funding under this program include improvements to runway safety areas that do not conform to 

FAA standards, investments that are designed to reduce runway 

incursions, and aircraft noise compatibility planning and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$3,480,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year 2015. 

The recommended limitation on obligations is $130,000,000 more 

than the enacted level for fiscal year 2014, and $580,000,000 more 

than the budget estimate. Under the administration’s request, 

large commercial airports no longer receive formula grants from 

the program, but they would be allowed to raise their passenger facility charges to finance capital improvements. The Committee 

notes that an increase to passenger facility charges was considered 

as part of the debate over the bill to reauthorize the FAA. That increase, however, was not included in the final legislation. The Committee therefore recommends a funding level that would fund capital improvements at all airports that support our Nation’s air 

transportation system. 

In addition, the Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $3,200,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports. The recommended level is equal to the budget estimate and the fiscal year 

2014 enacted level. This appropriation is sufficient to cover the liquidation of all obligations incurred pursuant to the limitation on 

obligations set forward in the bill. 

Protecting Infrastructure at Our Nation’s Airports.—The administration’s budget request would rescind $130,000,000 in additional 

contract authority that was provided in fiscal year 2014 under section 48112 of title 49, United States Code. This section of the code 

provides new contract authority when the amount appropriated for 

the FAA’s facilities and equipment is less than the amount authorized. The 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act provided 
44 

$130,000,000 less for the FAA’s facilities and equipment than the 

authorized level, which created $130,000,000 of additional contract 

authority for grants-in-aid to airports. Because the 2014 obligation 

limitation did not provide sufficient room to spend the additional 

contract authority, it remains available today. 

The Committee recommendation does not include the Administration’s proposed rescission because it would put future airport investments at risk. The rescission would artificially lower the total 

program level for grants-in-aid to airports when the Congressional 

Budget Office constructs its next baseline. By lowering the total 

program level for 2015, the last year of the authorization period, 

this lower program level would be carried through each of the following years. As a result, the rescission would require the authorizing committees to find an offset in order to return the program 

to its $3,350,000,000 funding level in the next authorization period. 

The Committee recommendation instead uses the additional contract authority to support an additional $130,000,000 in obligation 

limitation for grants-in-aid to airports. The Committee recommendation also sets aside this funding for investments in FAA’s 

facilities and equipment, and lowers the funding provided in the 

Facilities and Equipment account by an equal amount, since the 

contract authority itself was created when those needs received less 

investment. Recognizing that the funding is provided through the 

grants-in-aid to airports program, however, the Committee recommendation requires that the funding support facilities and 

equipment that are located on airport property. Such investments 

include runway safety areas, runway status lights, landing and 

navigational lighting systems, and air traffic control tower improvements and replacements. 

Finally, the Committee recommendation includes a rescission of 

any contract authority that would be created under section 48112 

in fiscal year 2015. This rescission would not affect the baseline. 

Airport Privatization.—Congress created the Airport Privatization Pilot Program in 1996 to attract private companies to lease or 

buy public airports. The Committee is aware there are some public 

airports interested in being sold or leased through the pilot program. The Department of Transportation has the discretionary authority to waive existing Federal funding repayment requirements. 

The Committee expects the Department to use its discretionary authority to waive repayment of past Federal funds at privatized airports judiciously. Last year, the Committee directed the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to evaluate the benefits, costs, 

and trade-offs of airport public-private partnerships; how public officials have identified and acted to protect the public interest in 

these arrangements; and the Federal role in such public-private 

partnerships and potential changes in this role. The Committee 

looks forward to examining GAO’s report when it is issued. 

Administrative Expenses.—The Committee recommends 

$107,100,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding level 

is equal to the budget request, and $500,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2014 enacted level. 

Airport Cooperative Research.—The Committee recommends 

$15,000,000 for the airport cooperative research program. This 
45 

funding level is equal to the budget estimate and the fiscal year 

2014 enacted level. 

Airport Technology.—The Committee recommends $29,750,000 

for airport technology research. This funding level is equal to the 

budget request, and $250,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 level. 

The Committee recommends that the FAA study whether it is 

appropriate to expand the installation of foreign object debris detection technology at hub airports in order to increase safety. 

Small Community Air Service Development Program 

[SCASDP].—The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the Small 

Community Air Service Development Program. This funding level 

is $2,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The administration requested no funds for this program for fiscal year 

2015. 

The Small Community Air Service Development Program 

[SCASDP] was initially established to help small communities 

throughout the country enhance air service and address airfare 

issues. In doing so, the program has played an instrumental role 

in the economic growth and transformation of many communities. 

The Committee directs the Department to submit a report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 1 

year after enactment of this act on how communities have benefitted from the program, how SCADSP grants have achieved the 

program’s goals, and what airports are doing to respond to air 

transportation needs, particularly in rural areas. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Section 110 limits the number of technical staff years at the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to no more than 

600 in fiscal year 2015. 

Section 111 prohibits funds in this act from being used to adopt 

guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide the 

FAA ‘‘without cost’’ buildings, maintenance, or space for FAA services. The prohibition does not apply to negotiations between the 

FAA and airport sponsors concerning ‘‘below market’’ rates for such 

services or to grant assurances that require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the FAA for air traffic control facilities. 

Section 112 permits the Administrator to reimburse FAA appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) as 

fees are collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 45303. 

Section 113 allows funds received to reimburse the FAA for providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities to be 

credited to the Operations account. 

Section 114 prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium pay 

except in those cases where the individual actually worked on a 

Sunday. 

Section 115 prohibits the FAA from using funds provided in the 

bill to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates through a Government-issued credit card. 

Section 116 allows all airports experiencing the required level of 

boardings through charter and scheduled air service to be eligible 

for funds under 49 U.S.C. 47114(c). 
46 

Section 117 requires approval from the Assistant Secretary for 

Administration of the Department of Transportation for retention 

bonuses for any FAA employee. 

Section 118 limits to 20 percent the cost-share required under 

the contract tower cost-share program. 

Section 119 requires that, upon request by a private owner or operator of an aircraft, the Secretary block the display of that owner 

or operator’s aircraft registration number in the Aircraft Situational Display to Industry program. 

Section 119A prohibits funds in this act for salaries and expenses 

of more than nine political and Presidential appointees in the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Section 119B requires the FAA to conduct public outreach and 

provide justification to the Committee before increasing fees under 

section 44721 of title 49, United States Code. 

Section 119C prohibits funds from being used to change weight 

restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro Airport in New 

Jersey. 

Section 119D requires the FAA to notify the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations at least 90 days before closing a regional operations center or reducing the services it provides. In addition, the Committee directs the FAA to provide to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 120 days after 

enactment of this act a strategic plan for staffing and operating its 

regional operations centers. 

Section 119E clarifies the name of the FAA center of excellence 

on advanced materials. 

Section 119F provides an average Federal share for any airport 

project located in a public lands State and no more than 15 miles 

from the border of another public lands State with a higher Federal 

share. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA] is, in partnership with State and local governments, to 

foster the development of a safe, efficient, and effective highway 

and intermodal system nationwide including access to and within 

national forests, national parks, Indian lands, and other public 

lands. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of 

$40,995,000,000 would be provided for the activities of the Federal 

Highway Administration in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation 

is $7,567,248,000 less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The following table summarizes the 

Committee’s recommendations: 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2014 enacted 2015 estimate 

Federal-aid highways program obligation limitation .............. $40,256,000,000 $47,323,248,000 $40,256,000,000 

Contract authority exempt from the obligation limitation ...... 739,000,000 739,000,000 739,000,000 
47 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2014 enacted 2015 estimate 

Fixing and accelerating surface transportation ...................... .............................. 500,000,000 ..............................

Total ............................................................................ 40,995,000,000 48,562,248,000 40,995,000,000 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation, 2014 ..................................................................................... $416,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 439,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 426,100,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

offices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$426,100,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. This limitation is $12,900,000 less than the budget request and $10,000,000 

more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

In addition, $3,248,000 in contract authority above this limitation is made available for the administrative expenses of the Appalachian Regional Commission in accordance with section 104 of 

title 23, United States Code. 

The Committee recommendation includes bill language that 

would make of sufficient contract authority available for FHWA’s 

administrative expenses to meet its needs in fiscal year 2015. However, the Committee recognizes that budgetary constraints will continue to pose a challenge for meeting FHWA’s administrative needs 

for years to come. For this reason, the Committee directs FHWA 

to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

a strategic plan for funding its administrative expenses for the next 

6 years at an annual level of contract authority that equals the 

funding authorized under Public Law 112–141 for fiscal year 2014. 

The Committee expects this plan to include details on the activities 

and services that FHWA currently conducts at its headquarters 

and division offices, the activities and services that could be accommodated over the next 6 years, and any impact of this plan on operations of State departments of transportation. The Committee 

also expects this plan to address staffing levels at both FHWA 

headquarters and division offices under current funding levels and 

funding levels projected for the next 6 years. FHWA should submit 

this plan no later than 120 days after enactment. 
48 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2014 ..................................................................................... $40,256,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 47,323,248,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,256,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal-aid highway program provides financial support to 

States and localities for development, construction, and repair of 

highways and bridges through grants. The program is financed 

from the Highway Trust Fund and most of the funds are distributed through apportionments and allocations to States. Title 23 of 

the United States Code and other supporting legislation provide 

authority for the various activities of the FHWA. Funding is provided by contract authority, with program levels established by annual limitations on obligations set in appropriations acts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2015 Federal-aid 

highways obligations to $40,256,000,000, which is $7,567,248,000 

less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level for the Federal-aid highway program. This funding level 

is consistent with the most recent authorization law, the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act [MAP–21]. 

In addition, the bill includes a provision that allows the FHWA 

to collect and spend fees in order to pay for the services of expert 

firms in the field of municipal and project finance to assist the 

agency in the provision of TIFIA credit instruments. 

Recent Emergencies.—Recent emergencies—including the 

mudslide in the State of Washington, flooding in Alabama and 

Florida, and damage to the I–813 bridge in Delaware—call attention to the importance of the Federal Highway Administration’s 

Emergency Relief [ER] program. This program provides essential 

funding to help communities repair or rebuild their roads and 

bridges after a declared emergency. The Committee urges FHWA 

to continue providing States with allocations from the ER program 

in a timely manner so that communities do not have to shoulder 

the financial burden of these emergencies longer than necessary. 

Benefit Cost Analysis.—The Federal-aid Highways program represents an important partnership between the Federal Government 

and each State department of transportation. The Federal role has 

primarily been to set standards, ensure compatibility among State 

systems, provide capital assistance, and oversee highway construction. State governments operate the highway system and set local 

priorities for constructing and repairing roads and bridges. 

While remaining sensitive to the role of State governments in 

setting priorities among highway projects, the Committee believes 

that the Department of Transportation plays an important role in 

ensuring that Federal resources are not spent on wasteful projects. 

Benefit cost analysis is an important economic tool that can help 

State and local governments target their transportation funding to 
49 

the most effective investments. Using benefit cost analysis, a State 

or local government would compare the monetary value of all benefits and costs that accrue during the life of a project. This process 

forces the government to evaluate the value of all of the project’s 

benefits, recognize the full cost of the project, and acknowledge 

whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs. 

The Committee is aware of FHWA’s efforts to support State and 

local governments in their use of benefit cost analysis. FHWA offers technical assistance to State and local governments that are 

already engaged in benefit cost analysis, and looks for ways to improve the estimates and models used in the analysis. 

The Committee urges the Department to take a more active role 

in advancing the use of benefit cost analysis. The Committee recommends the Department encourage State and local governments 

to evaluate project costs and benefits using an appropriate analytical framework, either through strict benefit cost analysis or 

through a less formal structure if a project size does not warrant 

a more rigorous approach. The Department should ensure that 

FHWA division offices reach out to State departments of transportation in order to determine if the State could more effectively utilize benefit cost analysis as it sets its priorities. 

The Committee also directs the Department to evaluate the use 

of benefit cost analysis by State departments of transportation, and 

to issue a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 180 days after enactment on the extent to 

which State departments of transportation use benefit cost analysis 

when making decisions and setting priorities, the quality of such 

analysis, challenges that State departments of transportation face 

when trying to use benefit cost analysis, and strategies for addressing those challenges. 

Innovative Project Implementation.—The Committee recognizes 

that State and local governments have benefited from a regional 

approach to developing public private partnerships. Resource programs can accelerate the delivery of essential transportation 

projects and help meet the increasing backlog of infrastructure 

needs by connecting public agencies with private capital and by offering technical assistance. The Committee therefore encourages 

the Department to use funds authorized under section 503(c) of 

title 23, United States Code, for the demonstration and evaluation 

of regional approaches to innovative finance. In conducting its 

work, the Department should take into account geographic diversity, recognize multi-State or multi-jurisdictional partnerships, and 

give priority consideration to approaches that ensure public interests are protected by including measures such as accounting for life 

cycle costs of building and maintaining infrastructure. The Department also should coordinate its efforts with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Army Corps of 

Engineers to identify ways in which State and local governments 

require additional capacity to access private capital. 

Infrastructure Planning.—Severe weather and other natural disasters can have serious impacts on transportation systems and the 

communities that rely on them, disrupting highways and public 

transportation systems, and slowing local economies to a crawl. Rebuilding and resuming normal operations in the wake of these 
50 

events can be difficult and costly. To address this issue, at the local 

level, many communities are beginning to incorporate the impact 

of these events into the planning, design, and construction of transportation services. Washington State, for example, has used the results of a statewide infrastructure vulnerability assessment in its 

corridor plans and project-level environmental studies. 

The Committee recognizes that taking into account severe weather and other natural disasters in infrastructure planning and building is a cost-effective and important step in ensuring the longevity 

of our transportation system. It helps to protect the critical corridors that businesses, workers, and families rely on every day. But 

as standards continue to develop, some states lack the technical expertise to incorporate vulnerability assessments into their planning 

efforts. Therefore, the Committee urges FHWA to define, and make 

available to States, best practices for resiliency planning. The Committee further urges FHWA to provide technical assistance to 

states and planning organizations to help them incorporate such 

considerations into the planning process. The Committee provides 

this direction also to FTA, and encourages both modal administrations to coordinate their efforts with FRA. 

Safety Performance Measures and Reporting Requirements.—On 

March 11, 2014, FHWA proposed a new regulation to establish 

safety performance measures for the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program [HSIP], as required by section 1203 of the Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act [MAP–21]. FHWA’s proposal 

would establish measures for the number of fatalities, fatality rate, 

number of serious injuries, and serious injury rate, as required by 

MAP–21. However, recognizing the increase in pedestrian and bicycle fatalities, the Secretary of Transportation should establish separate safety performance measures related to non-motorized traffic 

for the purpose of carrying out HSIP requirements. FHWA should 

define these performance measures specifically to evaluate the 

number of fatalities and serious injuries for pedestrian and bicycle 

crashes. The Committee notes that NHTSA already uses performance measures for pedestrian fatalities in administering its highway traffic safety grant program, and the Committee also understands that NHTSA intends to establish performance measures for 

bicycle fatalities when it administers its fiscal year 2015 traffic 

safety grants. Finally, the statutory deadline for completing the 

HSIP regulation has come and gone, and the Committee directs 

FHWA to publish its final rule on safety performance measures in 

a timely manner. 

Statewide Planning in Alaska.—The Committee is concerned that 

the State of Alaska has not adequately addressed the needs and 

concerns of boroughs and local communities as part of the statewide transportation planning process, and seeks to ensure that 

FHWA meets the intent of the statewide improvement program 

pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 135. Therefore FHWA shall work with the 

State of Alaska to ensure all necessary coordination and consultation occurs with areas outside of a metropolitan area to address infrastructure development needs. 

Advanced Composite Bridge Technologies.—The Committee supports the Technology and Innovation Deployment Program’s efforts 

to improve the safety, efficiency, reliability, and performance of our 
51 

Nation’s transportation infrastructure. It also notes the growing 

need to accelerate the adoption of proven, high-payoff, and innovative practices, technologies, and materials that lead to faster construction and cost-effective rehabilitation of efficient and safe 

bridges. The Committee encourages the Department to use funds 

authorized under 503(c) of title 23, United States Code, for the 

demonstration and deployment of advanced composite materials in 

bridge replacement and rehabilitation. 

Environmental Reviews.—The Committee recognizes the department’s efforts to implement the administratively related streamlining provisions included in the most recently passed authorization law for surface transportation. The Committee encourages the 

Department to continue its efforts to implement these changes nationally, and recognizes the efforts made by the administration to 

work cooperatively with other Federal agencies and with State governments, including its work with the State of Utah on its Mountain Accord approach for a regional transportation, land use, natural resource and economic solution. 

State Apportionments.—The following table shows the expected 

obligation limitation provided to each State under the Committee’s 

recommended funding level: 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2014 enacted 2015 estimate 

Formula Programs 

Alabama ............................................................................................... $666,523,393 $780,571,005 $666,523,393 

Alaska .................................................................................................. 431,280,533 503,737,124 431,280,533 

Arizona ................................................................................................. 658,807,679 763,580,755 658,807,679 

Arkansas .............................................................................................. 444,300,322 521,265,359 444,300,322 

California ............................................................................................. 3,241,833,216 3,736,277,886 3,241,833,216 

Colorado ............................................................................................... 481,581,822 557,458,050 481,581,822 

Connecticut .......................................................................................... 442,788,723 513,222,354 442,788,723 

Delaware .............................................................................................. 149,010,187 173,122,046 149,010,187 

District of Columbia ............................................................................ 143,658,866 166,602,143 143,658,866 

Florida .................................................................................................. 1,704,023,915 1,990,332,185 1,704,023,915 

Georgia ................................................................................................. 1,162,185,252 1,350,474,482 1,162,185,252 

Hawaii .................................................................................................. 145,600,898 169,780,194 145,600,898 

Idaho .................................................................................................... 251,629,382 293,466,533 251,629,382 

Illinois .................................................................................................. 1,280,430,045 1,482,096,858 1,280,430,045 

Indiana ................................................................................................. 838,444,365 977,267,890 838,444,365 

Iowa ...................................................................................................... 442,085,658 504,986,976 442,085,658 

Kansas ................................................................................................. 339,953,410 396,449,166 339,953,410 

Kentucky ............................................................................................... 597,649,211 697,488,318 597,649,211 

Louisiana .............................................................................................. 602,089,506 706,852,415 602,089,506 

Maine ................................................................................................... 162,507,557 189,146,434 162,507,557 

Maryland .............................................................................................. 529,861,416 612,146,732 529,861,416 

Massachusetts ..................................................................................... 547,286,674 631,090,267 547,286,674 

Michigan .............................................................................................. 948,056,298 1,098,666,593 948,056,298 

Minnesota ............................................................................................. 573,824,109 668,705,616 573,824,109 

Mississippi ........................................................................................... 425,041,105 497,266,513 425,041,105 

Missouri ................................................................................................ 832,108,062 973,038,925 832,108,062 

Montana ............................................................................................... 360,802,930 421,335,582 360,802,930 

Nebraska .............................................................................................. 260,074,708 302,874,327 260,074,708 

Nevada ................................................................................................. 327,084,874 378,148,323 327,084,874 

New Hampshire .................................................................................... 148,752,581 172,557,220 148,752,581 

New Jersey ............................................................................................ 899,681,983 1,037,768,218 899,681,983 

New Mexico .......................................................................................... 322,855,350 377,281,166 322,855,350 

New York .............................................................................................. 1,512,702,959 1,743,270,125 1,512,702,959 

North Carolina ...................................................................................... 938,667,262 1,089,261,829 938,667,262 
52 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2014 enacted 2015 estimate 

North Dakota ........................................................................................ 218,401,631 254,759,902 218,401,631 

Ohio ...................................................................................................... 1,180,794,980 1,371,742,972 1,180,794,980 

Oklahoma ............................................................................................. 570,449,410 665,898,629 570,449,410 

Oregon .................................................................................................. 439,640,806 513,039,905 439,640,806 

Pennsylvania ........................................................................................ 1,477,160,518 1,713,669,874 1,477,160,518 

Rhode Island ........................................................................................ 192,449,224 224,279,268 192,449,224 

South Carolina ..................................................................................... 602,320,145 687,944,588 602,320,145 

South Dakota ....................................................................................... 242,397,515 283,500,910 242,397,515 

Tennessee ............................................................................................. 726,319,740 849,508,126 726,319,740 

Texas .................................................................................................... 3,106,663,529 3,534,634,864 3,106,663,529 

Utah ..................................................................................................... 305,432,396 348,794,060 305,432,396 

Vermont ................................................................................................ 178,694,706 207,906,478 178,694,706 

Virginia ................................................................................................. 895,690,252 1,043,107,631 895,690,252 

Washington .......................................................................................... 596,788,979 694,660,799 596,788,979 

West Virginia ........................................................................................ 384,231,972 448,931,875 384,231,972 

Wisconsin ............................................................................................. 677,036,603 788,339,246 677,036,603 

Wyoming ............................................................................................... 220,152,132 257,587,195 220,152,132 

Subtotal .................................................................................. 34,827,808,789 40,365,895,931 34,827,808,789 

Allocated programs .............................................................................. 4,995,844,093 6,512,162,577 4,995,844,093 

Penalties under sections 154 and 164 of title 23, United States 

Code ................................................................................................. 432,347,118 445,189,492 432,347,118 

Total ........................................................................................ 40,256,000,000 47,323,248,000 40,256,000,000 

Program Descriptions.—The roads and bridges that make up our 

Nation’s highway infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States have much flexibility to use Federal-aid Highway 

funds to best meet their individual needs and priorities, with 

FHWA’s assistance and oversight. 

MAP–21, the current highway, highway safety, and transit authorization law, made funding for Federal-aid Highways available 

in the following categories of spending: —National Highway Performance Program [NHPP].—This program provides support for the condition and performance of the 

national highway system [NHS], and for the construction of 

new facilities on the NHS. Projects funded through the NHPP 

must support progress toward the achievement of national performance goals for improving infrastructure condition, safety, 

mobility, or freight movement on the national highway system. 

Such projects must also support progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a State’s asset 

management plan, and must be consistent with requirements 

for metropolitan and statewide planning. Funding for this program also supports the Transportation Alternatives program, 

and State planning and research. 

—Surface Transportation Program.—The Surface Transportation 

Program provides flexible funding that may be used by States 

and localities for projects that preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway; bridge and 

tunnel projects on any public road; pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and transit capital projects, including intercity 

bus terminals. Funding for this program also supports the 
53 

Transportation Alternatives program, and State planning and 

research. A portion of the program’s funding is set aside for 

improvements to off-system bridges. 

—Highway Safety Improvement Program.—This program is designed to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and 

serious injuries on all public roads, including roads on tribal 

lands and other public roads that are not owned by a State 

government. An eligible highway safety improvement project is 

any strategy, activity or project on a public road that corrects 

or improves a hazardous road location or feature, or addresses 

a highway safety problem. Such projects must be consistent 

with the State’s strategic highway safety plan, which must be 

based on analysis of crash data. Funding for this program also 

supports the Transportation Alternatives program, and State 

planning and research. In addition, a set-aside from the STP 

program funds the Railway-Highway Crossings Program, 

which supports safety improvements to reduce the number of 

fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public grade crossings. 

—Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program 

[CMAQ].—The CMAQ program provides a flexible funding 

source to State and local governments for transportation 

projects and programs that help meet the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and 

improve air quality for areas that do not meet the national ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. Funding for this program also supports the 

Transportation Alternatives program, and State planning and 

research. 

—Metropolitan Planning.—The metropolitan planning process establishes a cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive framework for making transportation investment decisions in metropolitan areas. Program oversight is a joint responsibility of the 

Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. 

—Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program [TIFIA].—This program provides Federal credit assistance to eligible surface transportation projects, including highway, transit, intercity passenger rail, some types of freight rail, 

and intermodal freight transfer facilities. TIFIA is designed to 

fill market gaps and leverage substantial private co-investment 

by providing projects with supplemental or subordinate debt. 

The program may provide credit to States, localities, or other 

public authorities, as well as private entities undertaking 

projects sponsored by public authorities. TIFIA offers direct 

loans, loan guarantees and lines of credit. 

—Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities.— 

The ferry program provides funding for the construction of 

ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities. Funds are distributed 

according to statutory formula. 

—Tribal Transportation Program.—The Tribal Transportation 

Program is designed to provide access to basic community services and to enhance the quality of life in Indian country. Funding is distributed among tribes based on a statutory formula. 
54 

—Federal Lands Transportation Program.—This program funds 

projects that improve access within federally owned lands, including national forests, national parks, national wildlife refuges, and national recreation areas. Each year, funds are provided to the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and funds are distributed on a competitive basis 

to the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, 

and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. 

—Federal Lands Access Program.—This program provides funds 

for projects on transportation facilities that are located on or 

adjacent to federally owned lands, or that provide access to 

those areas. Funds are distributed by formula among States 

that have Federal lands managed by the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. 

—State Planning and Research.—This program provides funding 

for States to conduct planning and research activities. The 

funds are used to establish a cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive framework for making transportation investment 

decisions, and to carry out transportation research activities 

through each of the States. The program is funded with resources from the National Highway Performance Program, the 

Surface Transportation Program, and the Highway Safety Improvement Program, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air 

Quality Program. 

—Transportation Alternatives.—This program provides funding 

for a variety of alternative transportation projects, including 

trails for pedestrians and bicyclists; transportation systems 

that provide safe routes for non-drivers, including children, 

older adults, and people with disabilities; and environmental 

mitigation projects. 

—Territorial and Puerto Rico Highway Program.—This program 

supports a highway program in the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, and it provides funding to assist the governments of the 

U.S. territories with highway investments and necessary 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: 
55 

—The Highway Research and Development Program funds 

strategic investments in research activities that address current and emerging highway transportation needs. 

—The Technology and Innovation Deployment Program funds 

efforts to accelerate the implementation and delivery of new 

innovations and technologies that result from highway research and development to benefit all aspects of highway 

transportation. 

—The Training and Education Program supports FHWA’s efforts to train the current and future transportation workforce, share knowledge with transportation professionals, 

and provide training that addresses the full lifecycle of the 

highway transportation system. 

In addition to these programs, funding provided under the Federal-aid Highways Program supports the Intelligent Transportation 

Systems Program, University Transportation Centers and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. These programs are administered 

by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology. The Committee recommendation would elevate RITA’s responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary, as requested by the administration. 

LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $40,995,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 48,062,248,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,995,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal-aid Highway program is funded through contract 

authority paid out of the Highway Trust Fund. Most forms of budget authority provide the authority to enter into obligations and 

then to liquidate those obligations. Put another way, it allows a 

Federal agency to commit to spending money on specified activities 

and then to actually spend that money. In contrast, contract authority provides only the authority to enter into obligations, but not 

the authority to liquidate those obligations. The authority to liquidate obligations—to actually spend the money committed with 

the contract authority—must be provided separately. The authority 

to liquidate obligations under the Federal-aid highways program is 

provided under this heading. This liquidating authority allows 

FHWA to follow through on commitments already allowed under 

current law; it does not provide the authority to enter into new 

commitments for Federal spending. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of 

$40,995,000,000. The recommended level is $7,067,248,000 less 

than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted 

level. This level of liquidating authority is necessary to pay outstanding obligations from various highway accounts pursuant to 

this and prior appropriations acts. 
56 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Section 120 distributes obligation authority among Federal-aid 

Highway programs. 

Section 121 continues a provision that credits funds received by 

the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the Federal-aid highways account. 

Section 122 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy America requirements. 

Section 123 requires congressional notification before the Department provides credit assistance under the TIFIA program. 

Section 124 makes contract authority available for FHWA’s administrative expenses. 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] was 

established within the Department of Transportation by the Motor 

Carrier Safety Improvement Act [MCSIA] (Public Law 106–159) in 

December 1999. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier safety responsibilities were under the jurisdiction of the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

MCSIA, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU], and the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act [MAP–21] provide 

funding authorization for FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs and Motor Carrier Safety Grants. 

FMCSA’s mission is to promote safe commercial motor vehicle 

and motor coach operations, as well as reduce the number and severity of accidents. Agency resources and activities prevent and 

mitigate commercial motor vehicle and motor coach accidents 

through education, regulation, enforcement, stakeholder training, 

technological innovation, and improved information systems. 

FMCSA is also responsible for ensuring that all commercial vehicles entering the United States along its southern and northern 

borders comply with all Federal motor carrier safety and hazardous 

materials regulations. To accomplish these activities, FMCSA 

works with Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies, the 

motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and the public. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total level of $592,300,000 for obligations and liquidations from the Highway Trust Fund. This level 

is $76,223,000 less than the request and $7,300,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 
57 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2014 ..................................................................................... $259,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 (limitation) ....................................................... 315,770,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 271,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources to support motor 

carrier safety program activities and maintain the agency’s administrative infrastructure. Funding supports nationwide motor carrier 

safety and consumer enforcement efforts, including Federal safety 

enforcement activities at the United States/Mexico border to ensure 

that Mexican carriers entering the United States are in compliance 

with FMCSA regulations. Resources are also provided to fund 

motor carrier regulatory development and implementation, information management, research and technology, safety education 

and outreach, and the 24-hour safety and consumer telephone hotline. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization of 

$271,000,000 for FMCSA’s Operations and Programs. The recommendation is $12,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $44,770,000 less than the budget request. Of the 

total limitation on obligations, $9,000,000 is for research and technology, $2,300,000 is for commercial motor vehicle operator grants, 

and $34,545,000 is for information management. 

Compliance, Safety and Accountability Program [CSA].—In 1999, 

NTSB concluded that FMCSA’s oversight of motor carrier operators 

was ineffective because its safety fitness rating methodology was 

insufficient. Furthermore, the agency relied on a labor-intensive, 

comprehensive audit process that was only capable of reaching 3 

percent of the industry annually. The NTSB recommended that 

FMCSA develop a more efficient method of evaluating operator and 

driver performance into its oversight and enforcement regime. 

In response, FMCSA began to implement its Compliance, Safety 

and Accountability Program [CSA] in 2004. The CSA program represents a complete overhaul of FMCSA’s systems and investigation 

practices, and is designed to better target the agency’s resources at 

the riskiest carriers. The goal of CSA is to use performance data 

to target interventions and help carriers to come into compliance. 

The CSA program uses the new Safety Measurement System 

[SMS] to identify motor carriers that are at risk of causing a crash 

or pose a significant safety hazard. 

The Safety Fitness Determination [SFD] rulemaking is the cornerstone of CSA. This rule will allow FMCSA to use a combination 

of performance data, on-road safety information, and investigations 

to determine whether a motor carrier is fit to operate. It was initially proposed to be completed in 2009, but the notice of proposed 
58 

rulemaking is now targeted for publication at the end of the calendar year, almost a year later than the Department’s plans called 

for a year ago. The delays in moving forward on this rule are excessive. The Committee has included bill language requiring the Secretary to initiate a rulemaking no later than December 2014. This 

rulemaking will be subject to great scrutiny, which is likely to require a significant amount of time. Until the SFD rulemaking is 

complete, FMCSA continues to rely on a rating and enforcement 

system that fails to place sufficient emphasis on both driver and 

vehicle qualifications, thereby compromising safety on our Nation’s 

highways. 

The Committee strongly supports the agency’s efforts to improve 

its programs and remains focused on ensuring CSA delivers the 

promised results. The Committee is troubled by FMCSA’s failure to 

meet critical milestones for implementing this new system. Therefore, the Committee requests that GAO continue to monitor the implementation of CSA and evaluate FMCSA’s ability to meet its designated milestones. 

Electronic Logging Devices.—In 1977, NTSB issued its first recommendation on the use of on-board data recording devices, or 

electronic logging devices [ELDs], to provide an efficient and reliable means of tracking the number of hours a commercial motor 

vehicle operator drives. To this day, this recommendation (H–07– 

41) remains open, and NTSB considers FMCSA’s actions to address 

this safety issue unacceptable. 

MAP–21 (section 32301(b) of Public Law 112–141; 49 U.S.C. 

31137) mandated that FMCSA issue a rule by October 2013 requiring all interstate motor carriers to be equipped with ELDs to improve compliance and enforcement with hours of service regulations. The agency was delayed in implementing the rule by a legal 

challenge to an earlier regulatory action on the limited use of 

ELD’s for operators with persistent hours of service violations. In 

March 2014, FMCSA finally issued a proposed rule to comply with 

the mandates of MAP–21. The proposed rule is expected to significantly reduce the paperwork burden to comply with hours-of-service recordkeeping, reduce crashes by fatigued drivers, and prevent 

approximately 20 fatalities and 434 injuries each year, according to 

FMCSA. The comment period was recently extended through June 

26, 2014. The Committee supports the expanded use of ELDs and 

encourages FMCSA to work aggressively to implement the ELD 

mandate. To that end, the bill includes language to reinforce the 

importance of addressing this regulatory action in a timely manner 

and requires the rule to be finalized no later than January 30, 

2015. 

High-Risk Carriers.—Since fiscal year 2008, the Committee has 

required reports on the agency’s ability to meet the requirement to 

conduct compliance reviews on all motor carriers identified as highrisk. Since the agency first began reporting its performance to the 

Committee, compliance with this requirement has improved significantly, from completing reviews of 69 percent of high-risk carriers 

in fiscal year 2008 to 93 percent in the 2013 calendar year. 

In December 2010, FMCSA deployed the new Carrier Safety 

Measurement System [CSMS] as part of its CSA program. CSMS 

more precisely identifies motor carriers that pose the highest safety 
59 

risk by quantifying the on-road safety performance of carriers in 

seven Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories [BASICs] when a serious violation has been discovered. Under CSA, 

and consistent with section 4138 of SAFETEA–LU, any motor carrier with certain BASIC alerts for 2 consecutive months is now labeled ‘‘mandatory’’ under CSMS. Mandatory motor carriers are 

prioritized for an onsite investigation if they have not undergone 

an investigation in the last 24 months. Under FMCSA regulations, 

carriers identified as mandatory must have a compliance review 

conducted within 1 year. 

FMCSA contends that the tracking and monitoring of high-risk 

carriers under CSMS is a manually intensive process involving a 

variety of data systems. Further, the monitoring of high-risk carriers operating under consent decrees is even more complex. Consent decrees allow high-risk motor carriers to continue to provide 

service when they receive an unsatisfactory rating by setting conditions and performance requirements on their operations. Currently, 

the monitoring of consent decrees is a completely manual process. 

Automating these systems as much as possible would save time 

and resources, and would provide a higher level of safety compliance review. The Committee recommendation includes additional 

resources to automate these investigation and compliance processes. The Committee believes this will improve the agency’s ability 

to monitor those carriers that pose the most significant safety risk 

to the public. The Committee directs FMCSA to provide a plan to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 

days of enactment of this act on the information technology [IT] investments required for automation. The IT plan must define the 

total lifecycle and operating costs, identify a timeline for deployment, including relevant benchmarks to determine progress, and 

define performance metrics the agency will use to determine the 

time and resource savings resulting from automation. 

The Committee is concerned that the FMCSA’s failure to investigate mandatory carriers in a timely fashion could lead to unsafe 

carriers operating on our roadways. For example, DND International, based in Naperville, Illinois, ranked in the bottom 10 percent of carriers for unsafe driving and bottom 5 percent for hoursof-service violations, which finally led the FMCSA in August of last 

year to assign an investigator to conduct a ‘‘focused investigation.’’ 

FMCSA failed to conduct this investigation in a timely fashion, and 

on January 27, 2014, a driver for DND International struck an Illinois State Police cruiser and an Illinois Toll Authority vehicle, both 

with activated emergency/warning lights, resulting in the death of 

the Toll Authority worker and life-threatening injuries to the police 

officer. 

FMCSA found that at the time of the crash, the driver had been 

on duty for more than 26 hours, with an opportunity for no more 

than a 51⁄2-hour break. After the accident occurred, the Secretary 

and FMCSA found the company had an entirely ineffective disciplinary process and showed reckless disregard for hours-of-service 

rules. The investigators stated that the company’s failure to monitor its drivers’ time on duty was ‘‘a key contributing factor’’ in the 

wreck. FMCSA’s CSA program identified this carrier as high-risk, 

but its failure to conduct an investigation in a timely manner al-
60 

lowed this chronically unsafe operator to continue to provide services on the Nation’s highways, placing the public at risk. 

The Committee directs the DOT Office of Inspector General to 

conduct an audit of FMCSA’s mandatory compliance review process 

to ensure motor carriers flagged for investigation are being investigated in a timely manner. The OIG should review whether or not 

the type of investigations FMCSA conducts is adequate enough to 

catch violations. The Committee is aware that the DOT is conducting an inter-agency review of these issues and the OIG is directed to review these findings during its audit. 

The Committee expects FMCSA to continue to prioritize these 

carriers for inspection and directs the agency to provide the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations with an updated report 

on its ability to meet its requirements to evaluate mandatory carriers by April 2015 for the preceding fiscal year. 

Specially Constructed Rail Service Vehicles.—The Committee is 

concerned that FMCSA’s Federal hours of service regulations, 

found in 49 CFR subsection 395.3, may not take into account the 

unique operating environment of specially trained drivers of commercial motor vehicles specifically constructed to service, inspect, 

maintain, and repair railroad track to support railroad safety and 

operations. The Committee encourages the FMCSA to collaborate 

with the rail service stakeholder community to consider an exemption for these rail service providers such that on-duty time could 

not include waiting time at a rail site. Instead, waiting time could 

be recorded as ‘‘off duty’’ for purposes of subsection 395.8 and 

395.15, and waiting time could not be included in calculating the 

14-hour period in section 395.3(a)(2), the 60-hour period in section 

395.3(b)(1), or the 70-hour period in section 395.3(b)(2). This collaboration shall include providing technical assistance to the rail 

service stakeholder community as it considers an application for exemption from these specifics hours of service regulations. 

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION OF OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2014 ..................................................................................... $13,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,300,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Motor Carrier Safety program was established to 

promote motor carrier safety and help States develop motor carrier 

data systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorizations 

from existing unobligated balances of $8,300,000 for border and 

field facility improvements that are part of FMCSA’s Capital Investment Plan. 
61 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriations, 2014 .................................................................................................. $313,000,000 $313,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ............................................................................................... 352,753,000 352,753,000 

Committee recommendation ....................................................................................... 313,000,000 313,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources for Federal grants 

to support State compliance, enforcement, and other programs. 

Grants are also provided to States for enforcement efforts at both 

the southern and northern borders to ensure that all points of 

entry into the United States are fortified with comprehensive safety measures; improvement of State commercial driver’s license 

[CDL] oversight activities to prevent unqualified drivers from being 

issued CDLs; and the Performance Registration Information Systems and Management [PRISM] program, which links State motor 

vehicle registration systems with carrier safety data in order to 

identify unsafe commercial motor carriers. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization of 

$313,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended 

limitation is equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and 

$39,753,000 less than the budget request. The Committee recommends a separate limitation on obligations for each grant program funded under this account with the funding allocation identified below. The obligation limitation listed below for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP] includes $218,000,000 for 

High Priority grants, of which $32,000,000 is for New Entrant 

grants. 

Amount 

Motor carrier safety assistance program [MCSAP] ....................................................................................... $218,000,000 

Commercial driver’s license program improvement 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 ................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

ADMNINSTRATION

Section 130 subjects the funds in this act to section 350 of Public 

Law 107–87 in order to ensure the safety of all cross-border long 

haul operations conducted by Mexican-domiciled commercial carriers. 
62 

Section 131 limits funding from being used to deny the renewal 

of a hazardous material safety permit under certain conditions. 

Section 132 This provision allows States that issued Commercial 

License Permits [CLPs] to individuals under age 18 prior to the 

May 9, 2011, rulemaking to continue to do so. FMCSA established 

a minimum age of 18 for issuance of a CLP without awareness of 

existing State rules and regulations at that time. In many States, 

commercial truck driving programs are offered through vocational 

training programs and the Job Corps targeted at students between 

the ages of 16 and 18. These programs help students prepare to 

drive commercial vehicles at age 18 and on the interstates after 

age 21, which are the minimum ages for Commercial Driver Licenses [CDLs] in all States. 

Section 133 temporarily suspends enforcement of the hours of 

service regulation related to the restart provisions that went into 

effect on July 1, 2013 and directs the Secretary to conduct a study 

of the operational, safety, health and fatigue aspects of the restart 

before and after July 1, 2013. 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Government’s regulatory role in motor vehicle and 

highway safety began in September of 1966 with the enactment of 

the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the 

Highway Safety Act of 1966. In October 1966, these activities, 

originally under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, 

were transferred to the Department of Transportation to be carried 

out through the National Traffic Safety Bureau within the Federal 

Highway Administration. In March 1970, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation. 

NHTSA is responsible for motor vehicle safety, highway safety 

behavioral programs, motor vehicle information, and automobile 

fuel economy programs. NHTSA’s current programs are authorized 

in five major laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code [U.S.C.]; (2) the 

Highway Safety Act (chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor 

Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act [MVICSA] (part C of 

subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.); the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation [TREAD] Act; (5) the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU]; and (6) Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act [MAP–21]. 

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides for the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for 

vehicles and related equipment and the conduct of supporting research. 

The Highway Safety Act of 1966 established NHTSA’s responsibility for providing States with financial assistance to support coordinated national highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, 

U.S.C.), as well its role in highway safety research, development, 

and demonstration programs (section 403 of title 23, U.S.C.). The 

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–690) authorized 
63 

NHTSA to make grants to States to implement and enforce drunk 

driving prevention programs. 

The MVICSA established NHTSA’s responsibilities for developing 

low-speed collision bumper standards and odometer regulations, as 

well its consumer information activities. Subsequent amendments 

to this law established the agency’s responsibility for administering 

mandatory automotive fuel economy standards, theft prevention 

standards for high theft lines of passenger motor vehicles, and 

automobile content labeling requirements. 

In 2000, the TREAD Act expanded NHTSA’s responsibilities further, requiring the agency to promulgate regulations for the stability of light duty vehicles, tire safety and labeling standards, improving the safety of child restraints, and establishing a child restraint safety rating consumer information program. 

SAFETEA–LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, established support for NHTSA’s high-visibility enforcement efforts, motorcycle safety grants, and child safety and child booster safety incentive grant programs. Finally, SAFETEA–LU adopted new motor 

vehicle safety and information provisions, including rulemaking directions to reduce vehicle rollover crashes and vehicle passenger 

ejections, and improve passenger safety in side impact crashes. 

The most recent surface reauthorization, MAP–21, consolidated 

NHTSA’s grant programs into a new National Priority Safety Program and set target spending rates for grants to States for occupant protection, State traffic safety information systems, impaired 

driving countermeasures, distracted driving, motorcycle safety, 

State graduated driver licensing, and in-vehicle alcohol detection 

device research. The bill also mandates State performance-based 

highway safety plans, and creates a new teenage traffic safety program, and Council for Vehicle Electronics, Software, and Engineering Expertise. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Between 2005 and 2011, the Nation experienced a 26 percent decrease in overall traffic fatalities, with 2011 marking the lowest 

number of fatalities since 1949. With the recovery of the economy 

and the return of more discretionary travel, the number of fatalities rose to 33,561 in 2012, a 3.6 percent increase over 2011. As the 

volume of freight and passenger vehicles on our highways continues to grow, NHTSA and its State partners must remain diligent to prevent further increases in the number of fatalities. The 

Committee recommends $834,500,000 for NHTSA to maintain current programs and continue its mission to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce vehicle-related crashes. This level includes both 

budget authority and limitations on the obligation of contract authority. This funding is $16,500,000 less than the President’s request and $15,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted 

level. 

The following table summarizes Committee recommendations: 
64 

General fund Highway trust fund Total 

Appropriation 2014 .................................................................................... $134,000,000 $685,000,000 $819,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 .............................................................................. ........................ 851,000,000 851,000,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 134,500,000 700,000,000 834,500,000 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

General fund Highway trust fund Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2014 ................................................................. $134,000,000 $123,500,000 $257,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 .............................................................................. ........................ 274,000,000 274,000,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 134,500,000 138,500,000 273,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These programs support traffic safety programs and related research, demonstrations, technical assistance, and national leadership for highway safety programs conducted by State and local governments, the private sector, universities, research units, and various safety associations and organizations. These highway safety 

programs emphasize alcohol and drug countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law enforcement, emergency medical and 

trauma care systems, traffic records and licensing, State and community traffic safety evaluations, protection of motorcycle riders, 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety, pupil transportation, distracted 

driving prevention, young and older driver safety, and improved accident investigation procedures. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $273,000,000 for Operations and Research, which includes funding for the National Driver Register. 

This level of funding is $1,000,000 less than the President’s budget 

request and $15,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted 

level. Of the total amount recommended for Operations and Research, $134,500,000 is derived from the General Fund and 

$138,500,000 is derived from the Highway Trust Fund, of which 

$5,000,000 is for the National Driver Register. 

Additional resources are provided to improve the Office of Defects Investigation’s [ODI’s] ability to identify vehicle safety defects, 

expand vehicle crash worthiness testing, conclude equipment compliance testing, conduct research and testing for motorcoach safety 

regulatory activities, and continue testing of emerging alternative 

fuel systems. 

Office of Defects Investigation [ODI].—The Safety Defects Investigation program investigates possible defect trends, and where appropriate, seeks recalls of vehicles and vehicle equipment that pose 

an unreasonable safety risk. To perform this mission, NHTSA 

maintains the collection of early warning reporting data submitted 

by manufacturers to the Advanced Retrieval Tire, Equipment, 

Motor Vehicle Information System [ARTEMIS], as well as complaints from vehicle owners, recalls, and crash investigations. The 

agency then analyzes the early warning data to determine whether 

anomalies or trends exist that potentially indicate the presence of 

a safety-related problem. 
65 

As a result of the General Motors recall of 2.5 million vehicles 

for faulty ignition switches that have been linked to at least 13 

deaths, concerns have been raised about NHTSA’s ability to identify vehicle safety-related problems. NHTSA contends that General 

Motors withheld critical information that would have helped identify the defect and likely changed the agency’s approach to the 

issue. ODI’s ability to find these safety defects is heavily dependent 

upon automakers acting in good faith to share defect information 

in a timely basis. Equally important is the ability for the agency 

to aggressively screen defect trends within the voluminous 

amounts of early warning data it receives. The Committee recommendation includes $10,200,000 to support the implementation 

and maintenance of the Electronic Document and Records Management System [EDRMS] Corporate Information Factory [CIF]. The 

CIF is an advanced data mining and analytical tool that will allow 

ODI to provide more transparency to its data and enable faster, 

more reliable results for defect screeners and investigators. 

New Car Assessment Program [NCAP].—The New Car Assessment Program [NCAP] is an important component of NHTSA’s continuing effort to reduce fatalities and injuries. NHTSA tests vehicle 

crash worthiness by evaluating passenger car crash performance 

data on frontal impact, side impact and rollover resistance tests to 

inform consumers about the relative safety of cars on the market 

using a five star safety rating system. Manufacturers respond to 

these tests by making more safety improvements to their vehicles 

for customers and earn top safety ratings. The Committee recommendation includes $14,000,000 for the NCAP program, consistent with the budget request. This level of funding will enable 

NHTSA to test 85 percent of the new model year fleet. 

Vehicle Safety Compliance.—Vehicles and vehicle equipment sold 

in the United States are required to meet Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standards [FMVSS]. The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance conducts testing, inspection, analysis and investigations to 

identify defective equipment and ensure that the manufacturer 

issues a recall or provides a remedy for noncompliance. The Committee recommendation includes $9,140,000 for FMVSS support 

consistent with the budget request. This level of funding will enable NHTSA to complete equipment compliance testing for child 

seats, initiate compliance testing for motor coach occupant protection related to MAP–21 motor coach safety mandates, and continue 

testing of emerging alternative fuel systems. 

Motorcoach Safety.—The Secretary is required to issue a number 

of occupant protection regulations to improve motorcoach roof 

strength and structural integrity, prevent ejections through windows, require technology that will reduce the chance of a rollover, 

and equip motor coaches with direct tire pressure monitoring systems. These issues are included in the Secretary’s Motorcoach Safety Action Plan and MAP–21 requires final rules to be issued in 

each of these areas by October 1, 2014. To date, the DOT has not 

issued proposed rules on any of these important safety initiatives. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of the date 

of enactment of this act on the status of the regulations mandated 

under section 32703(b) and (c) of MAP–21. 
66 

Fire Safety.—Fire safety is a recurrent problem on passenger-carrying vehicles of all kinds with 160 fires, on average, reported each 

year. Section 32704 of MAP–21 requires the Secretary to conduct 

research and testing on methods to prevent and mitigate fires on 

motorcoaches and, based on that research, determine what regulations are needed. The Committee directs the Secretary to report to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 

days of the date of enactment of this act on the progress of this research. 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard [CAFE].—NHTSA is 

responsible for setting fuel economy standards for cars and trucks 

sold in the United States to reduce energy consumption. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] is responsible for 

calculating the average fuel economy for each manufacturer. The 

President has directed both agencies to align their research, performance requirements, and regulatory framework to develop a coordinated national program that achieves the requirements of the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [EISA] and the 

Clean Air Act. 

The Committee recommends $7,900,000 for fiscal year 2015 for 

the CAFE program, as requested. Funding will be used to support 

rulemakings for medium- and heavy-duty commercial vehicles; propose fuel economy standards for heavy-duty truck trailers; continue 

a retrospective analysis of past fuel efficiency rulemakings to assess the accuracy of projects as directed by GAO; and conduct research on fuel efficiency improving technologies that will support 

the development of fuel economy standards for model years 2022– 

2025. 

The Committee recognizes the importance that plastics and polymer-based composite materials play in reducing vehicle weight. 

They provide vehicle manufacturers with innovative tools to reduce 

fuel consumption and, by association, vehicle emissions, including 

air toxics and greenhouse gasses. As manufacturers plan for future 

fleets, composite materials offer benefits for meeting new targets 

established under NHTSA’s recent vehicle fuel efficiency rules. At 

the same time, the Committee recognizes that composite manufacturing is a new and growing industry, providing highly skilled jobs 

in the automotive industry. The Committee directs NHTSA to continue advancing the state of the art of predictive engineering for 

plastics and composites, while validating the safety performance of 

plastics and polymer-based composites for the automotive industry 

in fiscal year 2015. The program will help facilitate a foundation 

of cooperation between DOT, the Department of Energy, and industry stakeholders for the development of safety-centered approaches 

for future light-weight automotive design. 

Emergency Communication Centers.—The Committee believes 

that improved pre-hospital emergency response is vital to reducing 

mortality on America’s highways and interstates, particularly in 

rural States where deaths per capita are highest. Providing highquality emergency response, including the deployment of technology platforms that improve communications and speed transmission of data, photo images and real-time video to a remote trauma center may improve outcomes and save lives. As such, the Committee directs NHTSA to consult with the Department of Homeland 
67 

Security and the Department of Health and Human Services to 

provide a report within 180 days of enactment to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations that identifies models of regional and statewide medical communications centers, the mechanisms by which these models could be integrated into existing 

emergency medical services and trauma systems, and the potential 

ability of medical communications centers to use evolving and innovative digital technology to reduce traffic fatalities. 

Child Hyperthermia Prevention.—The Committee commends 

NHTSA for increasing public awareness of the risks of death and 

serious injury to children from hyperthermia when left unattended 

in vehicles. The Committee supports the agency’s plan to continue 

a broad, coordinated national campaign along the lines of the successful efforts more than a decade ago that convinced more parents 

and caregivers to place children 12 years of age and younger in 

safer rear seats. A similar effort to prevent hyperthermia deaths is 

justified as there have been more than 600 of these deaths in vehicles since 1998, an average of 38 per year and rising. The Committee also encourages the agency to work with State highway offices to use their resources to heighten awareness. 

National Roadside Survey.—NHTSA recently sponsored the fifth 

National Roadside Survey [NRS] conducted since the original survey in 1973. This national field survey of nighttime weekend drivers seeks to estimate the prevalence of alcohol and drugs in drivers 

on our Nation’s roadways. The survey involves stopping drivers at 

approximately 300 randomly selected locations across the continental United States. While participation in the survey is random, 

voluntary, and compensated, civil libertarians have raised concerns 

about the presence of uniformed officers at the survey sites as the 

driving public may confuse survey sites with mandatory law enforcement checkpoints. In addition, passive and active collection of 

blood and saliva as part of the testing process has raised privacy 

concerns. The Committee directs NHTSA to provide a report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of 

enactment that details the survey methodology of the most recent 

NRS including what characteristics distinguish NRS sites from 

mandatory law enforcement checkpoints and what steps are taken 

to make clear that either pulling over or participating in the survey 

are both completely voluntary. The report should also describe 

what steps are taken to protect the privacy of both participants and 

drivers that come upon NRS sites. The report should further contain metrics describing the percentage of drivers that are pulled 

over that elect to continue with the survey. The report should describe the number of States in which the survey was conducted, 

and the process by which it notified members of Congress prior to 

the survey that a survey would be conducted in their State. Finally, the report should describe any incidents where participation 

in the survey led to arrest of the occupant(s) of the automobile. The 

Committee also directs the Government Accountability Office to review and report on the overall value of the NRS to researchers and 

other public safety stakeholders, the differences between an NRS 

site and typical law enforcement checkpoints, and the effectiveness 

of the NRS survey methodology at protecting the privacy of the 

driving public. 
68 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract 

authorization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriations, 2014 .......................................................................................................... $561,500,000 $561,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................................................... 577,000,000 577,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 561,500,000 561,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The most recent surface authorization, MAP–21, reauthorized occupant protection grants, State traffic safety information grants, 

impaired driving countermeasures grants, motorcycle safety grants, 

and consolidated them under a new National Priority Safety Program (23 U.S.C. 405). The bill also created three new grant programs within the National Priority Safety Program: State graduated driver license grants, distracted driving grants, and in-vehicle alcohol detection devise research. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization of 

$561,500,000 for the highway traffic safety grant programs funded 

under this heading. The recommended limitation is $15,500,000 

less than the budget estimate and equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The Committee has also provided the authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization. 

The Committee continues to recommend prohibiting the use of 

section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling 

costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for State, local, or private buildings or structures. 

The authorized funding for administrative expenses and for each 

grant program is as follows: 

Amount 

Highway Safety Programs (section 402) ............................................................................................................. $235,000,000 

National Priority Safety Programs (section 405) ................................................................................................. 272,000,000 

High Visibility Enforcement Program ................................................................................................................... 29,000,000 

Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 25,500,000 

Drunk Driving Prevention.—Since 2008, NHTSA has partnered 

with leading automobile manufacturers in the Automotive Coalition 

for Traffic Safety [ACTS] on an ambitious research program to develop in-vehicle technology to prevent alcohol-impaired driving that 

is publicly acceptable, unobtrusive for drivers below the legal limit 

of .08 BAC, reliable, and relatively inexpensive. The goal is to 

make such technologies available for voluntary installation in production vehicles within the next 5 years. ACTS is now operating 

under a second 5-year cooperative agreement. To date, progress has 

been significant, including the identification of two competing tech-
69 

nological approaches. During fiscal year 2015, these technologies 

will be installed in research vehicles for pilot field testing. The 

Committee continues to strongly support this promising research 

partnership, which has the potential to prevent thousands of drunk 

driving deaths annually. The Committee recommends $5,574,000 

for ACTS to continue this research, which is consistent with the 

budget request and $134,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The Committee expects work will be accelerated during 

the coming fiscal year on consumer acceptance and public policy 

issues that are essential elements of the project and must be addressed in concert with technology development and testing. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Section 140 makes available $130,000 of obligation authority for 

section 402 of title 23 U.S.C. to pay for travel and expenses for 

State management reviews and highway safety staff core competency development training. 

Section 141 exempts obligation authority, made available in previous Public Laws from limitations on obligations for the current 

year. 

Section 142 prohibits the use of funds to implement section 404 

of title 23, United States Code. 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an operating 

Administration within the Department of Transportation on April 

1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of Railroad Safety from the 

Interstate Commerce Commission, the Office of High Speed Ground 

Transportation from the Department of Commerce, and the Alaska 

Railroad from the Department of the Interior. FRA is responsible 

for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve 

safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry. 

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

and other financial assistance programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry’s physical infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad Administration. 

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $184,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 185,250,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 191,250,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA rail 

safety activities and all other administrative and operating activities related to staff and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $191,250,000 for Safety and Operations for fiscal year 2015, which is $6,000,000 more than the 

budget request and $6,750,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The bill specifies that $15,400,000 shall remain avail-
70 

able until expended to cover the cost of the Automated Track Inspection Program, the Railroad Safety Information System, the 

Southeastern Transportation Study, research and development activities, contract support, and Alaska Railroad liabilities. 

The Committee recommendation includes $3,750,000 to annualize the safety and inspector staffing increases provided in fiscal 

year 2014, and for 10 additional safety inspectors in fiscal year 

2015. 

Automated Track Inspection Program.—The Automated Track Inspection Program [ATIP] provides track geometry information, as 

well as other track-related performance data, to assess compliance 

with Federal Track Safety Standards. The data collected under 

ATIP is used by FRA’s railroad inspectors and by railroads to ensure proper track maintenance and to assess track safety trends 

within the industry. FRA is currently operating only one ATIP car 

for inspections. The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $3,000,000 to fund the use of a second car to support the 

inspection of crude oil routes—covering more than 14,000 miles nationwide. Funding will also be used to expedite implementation of 

a remote automated track inspection capability using unmanned 

systems to increase inspection mileage while reducing costs. 

Training and Outreach.—Class I railroads recently committed to 

spending $5,000,000 to develop a specialized crude by rail training 

program for local emergency responders at the Transportation 

Technology Center [TTC] in Pueblo, Colorado. This initiative will 

train an estimated 1,500 first responders. While a helpful and wellintentioned program, many communities and tribes lack the resources to meet the match requirements and pay the overtime for 

staff engaged in training, as well as the costs of the supplemental 

staff to cover their regular duties in their absence. The Committee 

recommendation for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration [PHMSA] includes $1,000,000 for hazardous materials emergency response training to be made available in a Webbased or electronic format. The Committee directs FRA to collaborate with PHMSA on the development of this training curriculum 

and to incorporate the training regime from TTC. This will ensure 

that communities and tribes on or near rail lines transporting energy products have access to this valuable emergency response 

training. 

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $35,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 35,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,730,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Railroad Research and Development program provides 

science and technology support for FRA’s rail safety rulemaking 

and enforcement efforts. It also supports technological advances in 

conventional and high-speed railroads, as well as evaluations of the 

role of railroads in the Nation’s transportation system. 
71 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,730,000 for 

railroad research and development, which is $5,630,000 more than 

the budget request and $5,480,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 

enacted level. 

Short Line Railroad Safety Institute.—Short Line railroads operate more than 50,000 miles of track, which is one-third of the national railroad network. They are an important feeder system for 

the larger Class I railroads, helping connect local communities to 

the national railroad network. There are 550 short line railroads 

operating in the United States, 73 of which currently handle some 

volume of crude oil. The safety management system of short lines 

is extremely varied and many companies lack the resources to conduct hazardous materials safety training and other operational 

safety assessments. The Committee supports FRA’s efforts to create a Short Line Railroad Safety Institute in partnership with 

short line and regional railroads to build a stronger, sustainable 

safety culture in this segment of the rail industry. The Committee 

recommendation includes $2,000,000 for this initiative, which will 

be used to perform safety compliance assessments and training on 

short lines that transport crude oil. The Committee believes this 

will be an important part of the larger safety strategy to improve 

the safe transportation of crude oil and other hazardous materials 

by rail. 

Accident Analysis and Mitigation.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for FRA to conduct accident risk analysis 

and mitigation research to examine how the safety risks of transporting energy products changes from source to destination. FRA 

will assess the likelihood and consequences of accidents during pretreatment, classification, loading, transit, and unloading. The agency will also evaluate mitigation strategies to reduce identified risks 

throughout the supply chain, such as regulation and enforcement, 

more accurate classification methods, alternative routing, reduced 

line speeds, improved braking, improved tank car crashworthiness, 

and better informed emergency responders. The research will provide a clear understanding of the most cost-effective ways of improving overall energy transportation safety. 

Research and Development Activities.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,480,000 for research and development activities related to the safe transportation of energy products. Specifically, FRA will supplement PHMSA’s research on the development of a Liquefied Natural Gas [LNG] bulk tank car and locomotive tender designs by conducting full-scale impact tests to assess performance, puncture resistance, and validate computer simulations. FRA will also evaluate technologies suitable for retrofitting tank cars to improve safety, conduct an analysis of the costs 

and benefits of retrofits compared to new tank cars, develop recommended practices for tank car retrofitting, and, if warranted, 

identify inspection and maintenances procedures for tank car retrofit options. 
72 

RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing [RRIF] 

program was established by Public Law 109–178 to provide direct 

loans and loan guarantees to State and local governments, Government-sponsored entities, and railroads. Credit assistance under the 

program may be used for rehabilitating or developing rail equipment and facilities. No Federal appropriation is required to implement the program, because a non-Federal partner may contribute 

the subsidy amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in 

the form of a credit risk premium. The Committee maintains bill 

language specifying that no new direct loans or loan guarantee 

commitments may be made using Federal funds for the payment of 

any credit premium amount during fiscal year 2015. The Committee directs FRA to continue to provide a summary of loan activity for the preceding fiscal years in its fiscal year 2016 budget justification. At a minimum, FRA should detail the number of loans 

pending and issued, and the processing time for these loans. 

THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) operates 

intercity passenger rail services in 46 States and the District of Columbia, in addition to serving as a contractor in various capacities 

for several commuter rail agencies. Congress created Amtrak in the 

Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (Public Law 91–518) in response to private carriers’ inability to profitably operate intercity 

passenger rail service. Thereafter, Amtrak assumed the common 

carrier obligations of the private railroads in exchange for the right 

to priority access to their tracks for incremental cost. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $1,390,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 1 ......................................................................... ........................... Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,390,000,000 

1The President’s budget would establish two new trust fund accounts for Current Passenger 

Rail Service and the Rail Service Improvement Program totaling $4,775,000,000, of which 

$2,450,000,000 would be available to Amtrak under the new Current Passenger Rail Service Account for both capital and operating expenses. 

The Committee recommends $1,390,000,000 for the FRA to make 

grants to Amtrak. This amount is equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The administration’s budget request would shift funding for Amtrak into a new $2,450,000,000 Current Passenger Rail 

Service program that would be supported by a new dedicated Rail 

Account of the Transportation Trust Fund. 

Of the total amount recommended by the Committee, up to 

$350,000,000 may be used for operating grants, up to $149,000,000 

may be used for debt service payments, and not less than 

$50,000,000 shall be used to bring stations into compliance with 

the Americans with Disabilities Act. Of the amounts available for 

capital, not less than $40,000,000 shall be used for the Gateway 

Program. Furthermore, up to one-half of 1 percent of the total 

funding level is available for FRA to conduct oversight of Amtrak’s 
73 

operating and capital expenditures, and up to one-half of 1 percent 

of the total funding level is available for the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. 

For operating grants, the Committee directs FRA to make a 

timely disbursement of funds no more frequently than once per 

quarter to maximize the Corporation’s ability to efficiently manage 

its cash flow. For capital grants, the Committee recommends the 

continuation of an initial allocation of $200,000,000 for a working 

capital fund, with the remaining amounts to be made available on 

a reimbursable basis. 

The Committee maintains requirements for Amtrak to submit a 

business plan and 5-year Financial Plan for fiscal year 2015. The 

Corporation shall continue to submit a budget request for fiscal 

year 2016 to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

in similar format and substance to those submitted by executive 

agencies of the Federal Government. 

ADA Compliance.—The Committee continues to believe that compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act [ADA] is essential to ensuring that all people have equal access 

to transportation services. In February 2009, Amtrak presented its 

plan for achieving compliance with the ADA over a 5-year period. 

Since then, the corporation has found it challenging to define the 

scope of projects to comply with ADA and complete work agreements with its partners at each station. In September 2011, DOT 

issued a final rule amending its ADA regulations for level boarding 

at passenger rail stations. The rule requires Amtrak to provide 

level entry boarding at stations where the tracks are not shared 

with freight rail, but allows Amtrak to provide alternative boarding 

mechanisms at tracks shared with freight rail. Amtrak had to reevaluate and revise all plans, design specifications, engineering requirements, and construction estimates and submit a new ADA 

compliance plan. 

Amtrak reports that the Corporation has some degree of ADA responsibility at 390 stations. Amtrak has provided mobile lifts at the 

110 stations that have less than 7,500 riders annually. The remaining 280 stations that have more than 7,500 passengers annually 

will need some type of set-back level boarding solution. Many of the 

platforms in these stations are owned by freight railroads and reconciling the requirements of existing freight traffic with the needs 

of passengers is a complex challenge. The Committee encourages 

Amtrak to use its funds to address compliance requirements that 

are the responsibility of other parties at the stations it serves 

where the work involved is not more than 10 percent of the cost 

of all ADA compliance work at that station, and where doing so 

would expedite completion of its compliance efforts and be a more 

efficient use of resources than compelling those parties to act. 

With the level of funding recommended by the Committee, Amtrak intends to advance construction at 15 stations and to finalize 

planning and design requirements for another 95 stations. By the 

end of the fiscal year 2015, Amtrak expects to complete work in a 

total of 52 stations. 

State Supported Routes.—The Committee notes that States with 

intercity passenger rail service under 750 miles in length have 

taken over the full cost of the service as required by section 209 
74 

of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2008 

[PRIIA]. That service has reached record ridership levels and generates nearly half of all Amtrak ridership, and 30 percent of its 

revenue. The Committee directs Amtrak to provide the required 

transparent, accurate cost information to States, as well as the 5- 

year capital equipment investment program agreed to in the PRIIA 

section 209 Cost Methodology Policy. The cost information should 

be detailed and verifiable. States must have confidence the costs 

they are being asked to pay are commensurate with the State-supported routes for which they are responsible. 

Amtrak’s Rolling Stock Acquisitions.—Acela service provides nationally important mobility services in the Nation’s most densely 

traveled intercity corridor and accounts for over 70 percent of the 

net operating surplus of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor operations. 

The equipment presently used to provide Acela service is capacity 

constrained and past its mid-life use for equipment in premium 

service. The Committee is aware of Amtrak’s interest in securing 

new high-speed trainsets that will initially supplement and eventually replace the equipment presently used to provide Acela service. 

The timely acquisition of this equipment is a critical element of improving Amtrak’s financial performance and an important element 

of the future of intercity passenger rail service. The Committee encourages Amtrak to apply for a RRIF loan to finance this acquisition, as it will offer more favorable financing terms and permit the 

cost to be spread over the life of the equipment. The Committee 

notes that the RRIF program has been underutilized up to now, 

with the Department having the ability to make approximately 

$34,000,000,000 in loans without further action by Congress. Thus 

this particular loan would not limit in any significant way the Secretary’s ability to make other meritorious loans. 

Food and Beverage Service.—Last year, Amtrak announced its 

intent to eliminate food and beverage losses over 5 years. The Committee is encouraged by this announcement and commends Amtrak 

for addressing this aspect of its business. The Committee notes 

that food and beverage service is important to Amtrak passengers, 

especially those who use long distance trains regularly. Not only do 

Amtrak’s customers require the service, but eliminating food and 

beverages from Amtrak’s operations would actually increase its operating losses due to reduced ridership and ticket revenue. 

While last year’s announcement is encouraging, Amtrak has yet 

to provide a specific plan to make its food and beverage service 

profitable. Therefore, the Committee directs Amtrak to report to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and the FRA 

within 180 days of enactment of this act a detailed explanation of 

the reforms Amtrak has already implemented to reduce food and 

beverage losses since the corporation first announced this initiative 

on October 3, 2013, and a comprehensive plan outlining how it will 

meet its goal by October 2018. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 150 permanently prohibits funds for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation from being available if the Corporation 

contracts for services, at or from any location outside of the United 
75 

States, which were, as of July 1, 2006, performed by a full-time or 

part-time Amtrak employee within the United States. 

Section 151 allows the Secretary to receive and use cash or spare 

parts to repair and replace damaged track inspection cars. 

Section 152 continues the conditions under which the Secretary 

may approve operating grants to Amtrak. 

Section 153 limits overtime payments to employees at Amtrak to 

$35,000 per employee. However, Amtrak’s president may waive 

this restriction for specific employees for safety or operational efficiency reasons. If the cap is waived, Amtrak must notify the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days and 

specify the reason for such waiver. 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Transit Administration was established as a component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization Plan 

No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred most of the 

functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act of 1964, as 

amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The missions of the Federal Transit Administration [FTA] are: to help develop improved 

mass transportation systems and practices; to support the inclusion 

of public transportation in community and regional planning to 

support economic development; to provide mobility for Americans 

who depend on transit for transportation in both metropolitan and 

rural areas; to maximize the productivity and efficiency of transportation systems; and to provide assistance to State and local governments and agencies in financing such services and systems. 

A growing number of Americans depend on public transit to get 

to work, school, medical appointments, and elsewhere. In 2013, 

they took 10.7 billion trips on public transportation, the highest annual ridership level since 1956. While the recession led to a decline 

in transit use in 2009 and 2010, ridership has since recovered with 

an improving economy. Growth is also driven by investments that 

communities and the Federal Government have made to expand 

transit options. This is especially true of rail transit, where ridership grew by more than a third in the last decade as new rail lines 

opened in almost two dozen cities, including Sacramento, Phoenix, 

Dallas and Salt Lake City. 

The most recent authorization for transit programs was contained in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

[MAP–21], which will expire on September 30, 2014. MAP–21 expanded FTA’s responsibilities for ensuring the safety of public transit; providing financial support to transit systems during emergencies, including natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes; 

and supporting core capacity improvements in existing fixed guideway systems. The Committee’s recommendations assume they will 

be further extended under their current structure until the enactment of a full reauthorization package. 
76 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of 

$11,055,000,000 is provided for FTA programs in fiscal year 2015. 

The recommendation is $6,594,400,000 less than the budget request and $309,357,000 above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $105,933,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 114,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 110,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Administrative expenses fund personnel, contract resources, information technology, space management, travel, training, and 

other administrative expenses necessary to carry out FTA’s mission 

to support, improve, and help ensure the safety of public transportation systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $110,500,000 from the 

General Fund for the agency’s salaries and administrative expenses. The recommended level of funding is $3,900,000 less than 

the budget request and $4,567,000 above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. This funding level will support new responsibilities for 

safety oversight assigned to FTA in the most recent authorization 

act, MAP–21, as well as cover the costs of salaries and inflation. 

The Committee has recognized for several years now that FTA’s 

staffing has not kept up with its increasing responsibilities. Successive evaluations have concluded that FTA requires additional staff 

to support a steadily growing workload and improve its ability to 

perform project oversight, contract administration, and technical 

assistance. The Committee acknowledges MAP–21 added significant new burdens, including standing up a new safety office. The 

recommendation supports full staffing for the Office of Transit 

Safety and Oversight, but due to funding constraints, does not include additional resources to address staff shortfalls in other core 

operations. 

The Committee again notes the lack of information about the additional resources requested in the Administrative Expenses section of the congressional justification. Although FTA provides this 

information upon request, the cost, location, composition and other 

details that support the budget should be included in the justification. The Committee directs FTA to provide this information in its 

justification for any staff increases it requests in future years. In 

addition, the Committee directs FTA to provide information on the 

staffing and funding requirements of each individual FTA office in 

its fiscal year 2016 submission. 

Transit Safety.—While public transit remains a remarkably safe 

mode of transportation, accidents do still happen, such as the derailment of a New York subway train in Queens last month, injuring 19. Six weeks earlier, a Chicago Blue Line train crashed at 

O’Hare Airport, injuring the operator and 32 passengers. To reduce 

the risk of such incidents, MAP–21 tasked FTA with significant 
77 

new responsibilities for ensuring the safety of public transit, including establishing common-sense standards for transit agencies 

and the State Safety Oversight programs that oversee them, as 

well as transit vehicles. These changes represent a new mission for 

the agency, one that requires FTA to stand up and staff an entirely 

new office while simultaneously producing the full range of regulations needed to comprehensively address transit safety under the 

auspices of the National Safety Program authorized in 49 U.S.C. 

5329. 

FTA has proceeded expeditiously since MAP–21’s passage in mid2012. It recently published interim safety certification training provisions, as well as a comprehensive advance notice of public rulemaking [ANPRM] covering the required National Safety Plan, 

Agency Safety Plan, and Safety Certification Training Plan. The 

ANPRM also included Transit Asset Management, a particular 

focus of the Committee since it directed FTA to assess the condition 

of the Nation’s rail transit systems in 2008, and then in 2010, to 

assume a leadership role in improving asset management in transit 

agencies. NTSB has identified a probable relationship in some 

transit accidents to equipment in poor or marginal condition, demonstrating a link between the condition of equipment and safety 

risks, not to mention reliability, maintenance costs, and the quality 

of transit service. 

In the coming year, FTA will continue to work closely with State 

Safety Oversight organizations to support their efforts to achieve 

compliance and certification. It expects to publish the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the safety plans and asset management, as 

well as its proposed adoption of the Safety Management System 

[SMS] approach to developing the National Safety Program. SMS 

takes a proactive approach to managing safety that has been 

adopted by other agencies with transportation safety missions, including the Federal Aviation Administration and International 

Civil Aviation Organization. To support these efforts, the Committee recommendation includes funding for 21 additional FTE for 

the Safety Office, making it possible to achieve the total planned 

complement of 49 staff. 

Infrastructure Planning.—Severe weather and other natural disasters can have serious impacts on transportation systems and the 

communities that rely on them, disrupting highways and public 

transportation systems, and slowing local economies to a crawl. Rebuilding and resuming normal operations in the wake of these 

events can be difficult and costly. To address this issue, at the local 

level, many communities are beginning to incorporate the impact 

of these events into the planning, design, and construction of transportation services. Washington State, for example, has used the results of a statewide infrastructure vulnerability assessment in its 

corridor plans and project-level environmental studies. 

The Committee recognizes that taking into account severe weather and other natural disasters in infrastructure planning and building is a cost-effective and important step in ensuring the longevity 

of our transportation system. It helps to protect the critical corridors that businesses, workers, and families rely on every day. But 

as standards continue to develop, some States lack the technical 

expertise to incorporate vulnerability assessments into their plan-
78 

ning efforts. Therefore, the Committee urges FTA to define, and 

make available to States, best practices for resiliency planning. The 

Committee further urges FTA to provide technical assistance to 

States and planning organizations to help them incorporate such 

considerations into the planning process. The Committee provides 

this direction also to FHWA, and encourages both modal administrations to coordinate their efforts with FRA. 

Project Management Oversight [PMO] Activities.—The Committee 

directs FTA to continue to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the quarterly PMO reports for each 

project with a full funding grant agreement. 

Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].—MAP–21 requires 

that FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking, 30 days before 

executing a full funding grant agreement. In its notification to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Committee 

directs FTA to submit the following information: (1) a copy of the 

proposed full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual 

Federal appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly and 

total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated for 

future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2019; (4) a detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and anticipated FFGAs 

against the program authorization, by individual project; (5) an 

evaluation of whether the alternatives analysis made by the applicant fully assessed all the viable alternatives; (6) a financial analysis of the project’s cost and sponsor’s ability to finance the project, 

which shall be conducted by an independent examiner and which 

shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and finance 

plan; (7) the source and security of all public and private sector financing; (8) the project’s operating plan, which enumerates the 

project’s future revenue and ridership forecasts; and (9) a listing of 

all planned contingencies and possible risks associated with the 

project. 

The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations in writing 30 days before approving 

schedule, scope, or budget changes to any full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to all changes shall include any 

budget revisions or program changes that materially alter the 

project as originally stipulated in the FFGA, including any proposed change in rail car procurement. 

The Committee directs FTA to continue to provide a monthly 

new starts project update to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations, detailing the status of each project. This update 

should include FTA’s plans and specific milestone schedules for advancing projects, especially those within 2 years of a proposed full 

funding grant agreement. It should also highlight and explain any 

potential cost and schedule changes affecting projects. In addition, 

FTA should notify the Committees 10 days before any project in 

the new starts process is given approval by FTA to advance to preliminary engineering or final design. 
79 

FORMULA GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Obligation limitation 

(trust fund) 

Appropriations, 2014 ........................................................................................................................................ $8,595,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 .................................................................................................................................... 13,800,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................................................ 8,595,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Communities use Formula Grants funds for bus and railcar purchases, facility repair and construction, maintenance, and where eligible, planning and operating expenses. The Formula Grants account includes funding for the following programs: transit-oriented 

development; planning programs; urbanized area formula grants; 

enhanced mobility for seniors and individuals with disabilities; formula grants for rural areas; a bus testing facility; a national transit institute; the national transit database; state of good repairs 

grants; bus and bus facilities formulas grants; and growing States 

and high-density States formula grants. Set-asides from formula 

funds are directed to a grant program for each State with rail systems not regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration to meet 

the requirements for a State Safety Oversight program. The account also provides funding to support passenger ferry services and 

public transportation on Indian reservations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting obligations in the transit 

formula and bus grants account in fiscal year 2015 to 

$8,595,000,000. The recommendation is the same as the authorized 

level for fiscal year 2014 and a placeholder for a level that will ultimately be authorized in the successor to MAP–21. The Committee recommends $9,500,000,000 in authority to liquidate contract authorizations. This amount is sufficient to cover 

outstanding obligations from this account. 

The following table displays the distribution of obligation limitation among the program categories of formula grants: 

DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FORMULA GRANTS 

Formula grants 

(obligation limitation) 

Section 

number 

Fiscal year 

2014 

Fiscal year 2015 

Administration 

proposal 

Committee 

assumption 

Transit Oriented Development .................... 20005(b) ........ $10,000,000 $10,234,449 $10,000,000 

Planning Programs ..................................... 5305 .............. 128,800,000 131,819,706 128,800,000 

Urbanized Area Formula Grants ................. 5307 .............. 4,458,650,000 4,563,182,692 4,458,650,000 

Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and 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 
80 

DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FORMULA GRANTS— 

Continued 

Formula grants 

(obligation limitation) 

Section 

number 

Fiscal year 

2014 

Fiscal year 2015 

Administration 

proposal 

Committee 

assumption 

Growing States and High Density States 

Formula Grants.

5340 .............. 525,900,000 538,229,684 525,900,000 

Total .............................................. ........................ 8,595,000,000 13,800,000,000 8,595,000,000 

TRANSIT RESEARCH

General fund 

Appropriations, 2014 ........................................................................................................................................ $43,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 .................................................................................................................................... 33,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................................................ 33,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation supports activities that are designed to develop solutions that improve public transportation. As the Federal 

agency responsible for transit, FTA assumes a leadership role in 

supporting research intended to identify innovative technologies 

and successful strategies to increase ridership, improve personal 

mobility and access, increase efficiency and safety, and demonstrate new technologies that promote clean energy and improve 

air quality. 

FTA may make grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and 

other agreements for research, development, demonstration, and 

deployment projects, and evaluation of technology of national significance to public transportation. FTA provides transit agencies 

with research results to help them be better equipped to improve 

services and meet local transportation needs at the lowest reasonable cost. FTA helps transit agencies employ new service methods 

and technologies that improve their operations and capital efficiencies, as well as improve transit safety and emergency preparedness. 

The current authorization, MAP–21, continues these activities, 

while increasing the importance of FTA’s role in promoting the development and deployment of successful low or no emission buses, 

technology the agency played an important role in helping to develop and promote in recent years. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $33,000,000 for the transit research. 

The recommendation is $10,000,000 below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level, and equal to the request. Of the total, $30,000,000 is 

for activities authorized under section 5312 of MAP–21. The Committee recommendation allocates the balance of funds to the Transit Cooperative Research Program authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5313. 

FTA’s research efforts have a long, distinguished record of success, having helped pioneer and test compressed natural gas [CNG] 

buses in the 1970s and hybrid diesel bus prototypes in the 1980s, 

leading to the widespread adoption of these technologies today. 
81 

More recently, FTA helped lead efforts to develop the first practical 

fuel cell buses in the world. 

There is a compelling case that the need for Federal support to 

help develop, test, and promote new transit-focused technologies remains as great as ever. These efforts can potentially help transit 

agencies reduce costs, and assist communities in their efforts to 

ease congestion and improve air quality. They also support U.S. 

economic competitiveness. To support these goals, the Committee 

directed the Office of the Inspector General [OIG] to provide a report recommending additional steps the FTA could take to promote 

the deployment of cost-effective low- and zero-emission buses. The 

report will also identify promising technologies that could benefit 

the industry by significantly reducing costs, curbing emissions, or 

improving safety. The Committee looks forward to examining the 

OIG’s report when it is issued this summer. 

Improving Rural Transit Access.—The Committee recognizes the 

importance of ensuring safe, private transportation is made available for seniors, especially in small and rural communities where 

distance and low population density make traditional mass transportation difficult. The efficiencies of information management can 

bring together underutilized private transportation capacity by 

combining ride share, car share, volunteer transport, and private 

community transport. The Committee encourages FTA to consider 

the use of suites of software programs that leverage many kinds of 

unused private transportation capacity to promote transportation 

for seniors in small and rural communities. 

Safety and Emergency Response Grants— Following the passage 

of MAP–21, in October 2013, FTA devoted $29,000,000 in research 

funding to a grant competition for innovative safety, resiliency, and 

all-hazards emergency response and recovery research demonstration projects of national significance. FTA received 72 proposals 

seeking $161,000,000 for projects to demonstrate such innovations 

as advanced communication systems, advanced train control and 

crash avoidance technologies, and rail track worker safety and information systems. The agency expects to announce its selections 

in July. 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 27,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

MAP–21 authorizes FTA to provide technical assistance to the 

public transportation industry and to develop standards for transit 

services, with an emphasis on improving access for all individuals 

and transportation equity. It also authorizes FTA to support public 

transportation workforce development, training, and recruitment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,500,000 for technical assistance 

and training. The recommendation is $500,000 above the fiscal 

year 2014 level, and $22,000,000 below the request. Of the total, 

$5,000,000 is for activities authorized under section 5314 of MAP– 
82 

21. The Committee recommendation allocates the balance of funds, 

$500,000, to the Human Resources and Training activities authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5322. The Committee is sympathetic to the 

Department’s proposal to fund a substantial workforce development 

program within FTA, but is not in the position to make such a commitment while discretionary spending remains constrained and the 

Capital Investment Grants program continues to grow. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $1,942,938,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 2,500,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,161,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under the Capital Investment Grants program, FTA provides 

grants to fund the building of new fixed guideway systems or extensions and improvements to existing fixed guideway systems. Eligible services include light rail, rapid rail (heavy rail), commuter 

rail, and bus rapid transit. The program has long included funding 

for two categories of eligible projects authorized under section 5309 

of title 49 of the United States Code: New Starts and Small Starts. 

New Starts are projects with a Federal share of at least 

$75,000,000 and a total capital cost of $250,000,000 or more. By 

comparison, Small Starts are projects with a Federal match and 

total capital cost below these thresholds. The most recent reauthorization, MAP–21, added a third category of eligible projects: Core 

Capacity. The latter are defined as projects that will increase capacity in an existing fixed guideway corridor by at least 10 percent. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For more than a decade, there has been renewed interest in 

many parts of the country in rail transit, especially in areas seeking to find solutions to road congestion, support economic development, manage population growth, and reduce air pollution. The 

Committee supports these investments, which it believes are essential to maintaining the Nation’s economic competitiveness. 

The Committee recommends a level of $2,161,000,000 for capital 

investment grants. This level fully funds all of the projects included 

in Department’s request that are currently under construction or 

expected to be so during fiscal year 2015. 

RECOMMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2015 FUNDING FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS 

Project Fiscal year 2015 

recommendations 

Totals by Project Type: 

Existing New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreements ......................................................................... $1,510,137,944 

Recommended New Starts Projects .................................................................................................... 413,221,561 

Recommended Core Capacity Funding ............................................................................................... 120,000,000 

Recommended Small Starts Projects .................................................................................................. 151,702,662 

Oversight Activities ............................................................................................................................. 30,937,833 

Less existing unallocated balances .................................................................................................... (65,000,000 ) 

Grand total ..................................................................................................................................... 2,161,000,000 

Existing New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreements With Remaining Funding Needs: 

CA Los Angeles, Regional Connector Transit Corridor ....................................................................... 100,000,000 
83 

RECOMMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2015 FUNDING FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS—Continued 

Project Fiscal year 2015 

recommendations 

CA San Francisco—Third Street Light Rail-Central Subway Project ................................................. 150,000,000 

CA San Jose—Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension ............................................................................. 150,000,000 

CA Los Angeles, Westside Subway Extension—Section 1 ................................................................. 100,000,000

CO Denver—RTD Eagle, Denver ......................................................................................................... 150,000,000 

CT New BritainHartford Busway 1 ....................................................................................................... 61,938,873 

HI Honolulu—High Capacity Transit Corridor .................................................................................... 250,000,000 

MN St. Paul-Min., Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Project 1 ........................................................ 109,147,017 

NC Charlotte, Blue Line Extension-Northeast Corridor ....................................................................... 100,000,000 

NY New York—East Side Access 1 ..................................................................................................... 47,222,960 

OR Portland-Milwaukie LRT ................................................................................................................ 100,000,000 

VA Northern Virginia-Dulles Wiehle Ave 1 ........................................................................................... 102,155,131 

WA Seattle-University Link LRT Extension 1 ........................................................................................ 89,673,963 

Total Existing New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreements ........................................................... 1,510,137,944

Recommended New Starts Projects: 

FL Orlando, SunRail Phase II South 2 ................................................................................................. 63,221,561 

MA Cambridge to Medford, Green Line Extension 2 ............................................................................ 100,000,000 

MD Baltimore, Red Line 2 .................................................................................................................... 100,000,000

MD Maryland National Capital Purple Line 2 ...................................................................................... 100,000,000 

TX Fort Worth, TEX Rail 2 .................................................................................................................... 50,000,000 

Total Recommended New Starts Projects ...................................................................................... 413,221,561 

Core Capacity Projects: 

IL Chicago, Red and Purple Line Modernization Project .................................................................. 120,000,000 

Recommended Small Starts Projects: 

Total Small Starts .......................................................................................................................... 151,702,662 

1 Indicates completion of FTA commitment to the project. 

2 Indicates first time included as a funding recommendation in the President’s budget. 

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... $25,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program is a new 

program established in MAP–21 to help States and public transit 

systems cover the costs of protecting, repairing, and replacing 

equipment and facilities that may suffer or have suffered serious 

damage as a result of an emergency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Due to funding constraints, the Committee is unable to include 

funding for the emergency relief program in fiscal year 2015. 

GRANTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT

AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $150,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 150,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 150,000,000 
84 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides assistance to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA]. The Federal Rail Safety 

Improvements Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–432, title VI, section 

601) authorized DOT to make up to $150,000,000 available to 

WMATA annually for capital and preventive maintenance for a 10- 

year period. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for grants 

to WMATA for capital and preventive maintenance expenses, including pressing safety-related investments. These grants are in 

addition to the funding local jurisdictions have committed to providing to WMATA. The Committee remains committed to supporting the refurbishment and modernization of WMATA’s infrastructure, and is encouraged by the initial investment to replace 

many of the older, 1000-series rail cars with domestically built 

7000-series cars, with delivery starting in 2015. WMATA expects to 

retire the last of the 1000-series cars by early 2017. The Committee 

also notes increased efforts to make the system safer, including: 

fixing the track signal system and communications equipment, installing guarded turnouts, buying equipment for wayside worker 

protection, and installing rollback protection on cars not already 

outfitted with this feature. 

Metro’s Financial Management.—In March 2014, an FTA audit 

reported material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in 

WMATA’s internal controls. The audit found that WMATA did not 

have adequate controls in place to ensure Federal expenditures 

were properly incurred and charged to grants, or accurately reported. It also concluded that WMATA did not have adequate controls in place to ensure that goods and services were procured in 

accordance with Federal regulations. In response to these serious 

findings, FTA suspended WMATA’s ability to automatically draw 

down its Federal grants; until these weaknesses are corrected, FTA 

will review and approve each WMATA request for reimbursement. 

The Committee is deeply troubled by the auditors’ findings, and 

expects WMATA to quickly eliminate the material weaknesses, significant deficiencies, and minor control deficiencies before it begins 

work on the fiscal year 2016 appropriations. 

The Committee directs WMATA to provide the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations a report each quarter detailing its 

progress in completing each of the auditors’ 45 recommendations. 

The bill requires the Secretary to approve grants provided under 

this heading to WMATA only after certifying that significant 

progress has been made. 

The bill also directs FTA to provide these grants to WMATA only 

after receiving and reviewing a request for each specific project to 

be funded under this heading. The bill requires FTA to determine 

that WMATA has placed the highest priority on funding projects 

that will improve the safety of its public transit system before approving these grants, using the National Transportation Safety 

Board’s recommendations as a guide. 
85 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Section 160 exempts authority previously made available for programs of the FTA under section 5338 of title 49, United States 

Code, from the obligation limitations in this act. 

Section 161 requires that funds appropriated or limited by this 

act for specific projects not obligated by September 30, 2019, and 

other recoveries, be directed to projects eligible to use the funds for 

the purposes for which they were originally provided. 

Section 162 allows funds appropriated before October 1, 2014 

that remain available for expenditure to be transferred to the most 

recent appropriation heading. 

Section 163 provides an exemption from the charter bus regulations for portions of the State of Washington. 

Section 164 permits the Secretary to consider significant private 

contributions when calculating the non-Federal share of capital 

costs for New Starts projects. 

Section 165 requires the Secretary to consider Small Starts 

projects eligible when developing guidance implementing the Program of Interrelated Projects. 

Section 166 makes $20,000,000 in prior year bus and bus facilities funds available for bus rapid transit projects proposed in the 

Capital Investment Grants program. 

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC] 

is a wholly owned Government corporation established by the Saint 

Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 981). SLSDC is 

a vital transportation corridor for the international movement of 

bulk commodities such as steel, iron, grain, and coal, serving the 

North American region that makes up one-quarter of the United 

States population and nearly one-half of the Canadian population. 

The SLSDC is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of the United States portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $31,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 31,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 31,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] was established by 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99– 

662). Since 1987, the HMTF has supported the operations and 

maintenance of commercial harbor projects maintained by the Federal Government. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund and revenues from non-Federal sources finance the operation and maintenance of the Seaway, for which SLSDC is responsible. 
86 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $31,500,000 for the operations, 

maintenance, and asset renewal of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. 

This amount is equal to the budget request and $500,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The recommended level includes $14,300,000 to continue the agency’s Asset Renewal Program [ARP]. 

The Seaway is entering its 56th year of operation, which means 

that its infrastructure components are reaching the end of their design life. The ARP is a significant 10-year, multi-project strategy to 

address the long-term asset renewal needs of the U.S. portions of 

the Saint Lawrence Seaway, with attention to the two locks operated and maintained by the United States (Snell and Eisenhower), 

the U.S. segment of the Seaway International Bridge, maintenance 

dredging, operational systems, facilities, and equipment. 

SLSDC has made significant progress in executing the projects 

identified in the ARP under limited construction capacity since receiving initial appropriations in fiscal year 2009. The Committee 

encourages SLSDC to move ahead with major ARP projects in fiscal year 2015, including the installation of a new hands-free vessel 

vacuum mooring system, continued upgrade of miter gate machinery at the Seaway locks, structural rehabilitation of the miter 

gates, and the start of a 4-year project to replace SLSDC’s tugboats, Robinson Bay and Performance. The Committee directs 

SLSDC to continue to submit an annual report to the Senate and 

House Appropriations Committees, not later than April 30 of each 

year, summarizing the activities of the ARP during the immediate 

preceding fiscal year. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Administration [MARAD] is responsible for programs authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended 

(46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). MARAD is also responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support of the 

Nation’s security and economic needs. MARAD prioritizes the Department of Defense’s [DOD] use of ports and intermodal facilities 

during DOD mobilizations to guarantee the smooth flow of military 

cargo through commercial ports. MARAD manages the Maritime 

Security Program, the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement 

Program, and the Ready Reserve Force, which assure DOD access 

to commercial and strategic sealift and associated intermodal capacity. MARAD also continues to address the disposal of obsolete 

ships in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that are deemed a potential environmental risk. Further, MARAD administers education 

and training programs through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six State maritime schools that assist in providing skilled 

merchant marine officers who are capable of serving defense and 

commercial transportation needs. The Committee continues to fund 

MARAD in its support of the United States as a maritime Nation. 
87 

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $186,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 211,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 186,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Security Program [MSP] provides resources to 

maintain a U.S.-flag merchant fleet crewed by U.S. citizens to 

serve both the commercial and national security needs of the 

United States. The program provides direct payments to U.S.-flag 

ship operators engaged in U.S. foreign trade. Participating operators are required to keep the vessels in active commercial service 

and provide intermodal sealift support to DOD in times of war or 

national emergency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $186,000,000 for 

the MSP. This amount is $25,000,000 less than the budget request 

and equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The recommended 

appropriation provides sufficient funds to satisfy the fully authorized payment level for fiscal year 2015. 

The MSP is a successful and critical partnership with the Department of Defense and the U.S.-flag commercial maritime industry that supports military operations overseas. The MSP provides 

a sealift fleet capacity that would cost the Government 

$13,000,000,000 in capital to reproduce. Furthermore, according to 

the United States Transportation Command, it would cost the Government an additional $52,000,000,000 to replicate the global intermodal system that is made available to the Department of Defense 

by MSP participants who are continuously developing, maintaining, 

and upgrading their logistical support systems. The Committee 

strongly encourages the Department of Transportation to continue 

to support this proven and cost effective program in its fiscal year 

2016 budget request. 

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $148,003,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 148,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 149,900,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Operations and Training appropriation primarily funds the 

salaries and expenses for MARAD headquarters and regional staff 

in the administration and direction for all MARAD programs. The 

account includes funding for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, 

six State maritime schools, port and intermodal development, cargo 

preference, international trade relations, deep-water port licensing 

and administrative support costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $149,900,000 for 

Operations and Training at MARAD for fiscal year 2015 to be distributed between agency operations, the United States Merchant 
88 

Marine Academy, and State maritime academies as outlined in the 

chart below. This amount is $1,897,000 more than the fiscal year 

2014 enacted level and $1,500,000 more than the budget request. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

Fiscal year 2015 Senate 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy ........................................................................................................................... $80,090,000 

Academy Operations .................................................................................................................................... 64,136,000 

Capital Improvements ................................................................................................................................. 12,000,000 

Facilities Maintenance, Repair and Equipment ......................................................................................... 3,954,000 

State Maritime Academies ................................................................................................................................... 19,100,000 

SMA Direct Payments .................................................................................................................................. 4,200,000 

Student Incentive Payments ....................................................................................................................... 2,400,000 

Schoolship Maintenance and Repair .......................................................................................................... 11,300,000 

Fuel Assistance Payments .......................................................................................................................... 1,200,000 

MARAD Operations ............................................................................................................................................... 50,710,000 

TOTAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 149,900,000 

Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment at the United States Merchant Marine Academy.—The United States Merchant Marine 

Academy [USMMA] provides educational programs for men and 

women to become shipboard officers and leaders in the maritime 

industry. The Committee is committed to ensuring the Academy’s 

midshipmen receive the highest quality education to prepare them 

for a commission with the U.S. Naval Reserve or other uniformed 

service upon graduation. 

To that end, the Committee is very concerned about the increasing rate of incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment at 

the Academy. The fiscal year 2009 Department of Defense Authorization Act set specific requirements in statue to address incidents 

of sexual harassment and sexual assault. MARAD is required to 

conduct an annual assessment of the effectiveness of the USMMA 

policies, training and procedures. Every other year, MARAD is required to conduct a survey of staff and midshipmen. 

The USMMA survey of sexual harassment and sexual assault 

from the 2009–2010 academic year revealed disturbing results 

about conditions at the Academy. In response, the Secretary announced a nine point action plan in November 2011, aimed at fostering a climate that is intolerant of abuse, and focused on improving student and faculty trust and confidence in senior leadership. 

Unfortunately, the succeeding survey for the 2011–2012 academic year revealed significant increases in the number of incidents, with the estimated rate of sexual assault more than doubling, and the estimated rate of sexual harassment increasing by 

more than 500 percent. Almost as disturbing is the fact that that 

none of these incidents were reported to USMMA officials. 

While the Committee recognizes that changes in the methodology 

between the 2009–2010 and 2011–2012 surveys may have affected 

the results, a dramatic increase in the number of incidents is indisputable, even when taking into consideration the potential margin 

of error and non-response bias. According to survey analysts, the 

level of non-response bias stemming from changing the survey from 

compulsory to voluntary participation ‘‘seems more likely to understate the rate of unwanted sexual contact that overstate it.’’ 
89 

MARAD contends that many of Secretary’s reforms were not implemented prior to the second survey being conducted, and as a result the impact of these reforms is not reflected. Based on information the Department recently provided the Committee, this appears 

to be the case, yet it is totally unacceptable. 

According to the Department, many of the Secretary’s proposed 

corrective actions were not slated for implementation until the second and third quarters of fiscal year 2012, 4 to 10 months after the 

Secretary’s plan was announced, and well into the next survey period. The Committee is deeply troubled by the inexcusably slow implementation of reforms after the deeply disturbing first survey. 

The Committee’s confidence in the Department’s commitment to 

confront abuse at the Academy has also been damaged by what appears to be the delayed release of survey findings. The survey results for the 2009–2010 academic year were not submitted to Congress until November 2011—more than a year after the survey was 

completed. Similarly, the survey results for the 2011–2012 academic year were not submitted to Congress until March 27, 2014— 

almost a year after that survey was completed, and again well into 

the current survey year now underway. Without a timely assessment of the survey results, the Academy cannot effectively determine if any of the changes to its policies or education and training 

programs are having a positive effect. 

It is imperative that senior leadership throughout the Department make improving conditions at the Academy a top priority. 

The survey for the 2013–2014 school year is now being administered and should be finalized by November 2014. The Committee 

directs the Secretary to provide the survey report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than January 12, 

2015. 

The DOT inspector general is currently auditing of the implementation of the Secretary’s nine point corrective action plan. The 

Committee expects to have preliminary findings of the audit this 

summer. This will provide useful information for Committee oversight. It should also aid the new DOT Secretary, who is equally 

committed to preventing these crimes from occurring and fostering 

a climate of trust and confidence to encourage the Academy’s students to report them when they do. 

An annual report and biannual survey will be issued by MARAD 

in fiscal year 2015. The Committee directs the OIG to assess this 

new information and evaluate the progress the Academy has made 

to address corrective actions at the Academy. The OIG shall report 

its findings and recommendations to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than May 2015. 

United States Merchant Marine Academy Board of Visitors.—The 

recommended level of funding includes sufficient resources to support to the annual USMMA Board of Visitors meeting required in 

46 U.S.C. 51312. The Committee directs MARAD to assign a designated Federal officer to assist the Board of Visitors in the performance of its functions. The Committee urges MARAD to seek 

additional support from the Department of the Navy since the 

USMMA is the second leading commissioning source for Naval Officers. 
90 

Evaluation of the Statutory Authorities of the United States Merchant Marine Academy.—The Committee directs MARAD to conduct a legal review of existing statutory authorities of the USMMA 

and identify limitations that impede its ability to operate effectively and efficiently. In conducting this review, MARAD shall compare the statutory authorities of other service academies and public 

universities where suitable, including the acceptance of gifts and 

bequests, the legal and operational relationship with alumni foundations, and the use of non-appropriated fund instrumentalities. 

The Committee directs MARAD to make recommendations where 

inconsistencies exist that would improve Academy operations and 

financial controls, as well as any other issues that the Superintendent or Administrator find appropriate. MARAD shall report 

its findings, conclusions and recommendations to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure no later than April 3, 2015. 

United States Merchant Marine Academy Capital Improvements 

Plan [CIP].—The Committee once again directs the Administrator 

to provide an annual report by March 31, 2015, on the current status of the CIP. The report should include a list of all projects that 

have received funding and all proposed projects that the Academy 

intends to initiate within the next 5 years; cost overruns and cost 

savings for each active project; specific target dates for project completion; delays and the cause of delays; schedule changes; up-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. Funds provided in fiscal year 2015 

should be used to continue independent testing of ballast water 

technologies to meet domestic and international regulatory requirements, assist in the testing and deployment of vessel air emissions 

reduction technology, and facilitate the liquefied natural gas [LNG] 

propulsion systems for increased energy efficiency at sea. 

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $4,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 4,800,000 

Committee Recommendation ................................................................ 4,800,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,800,000 for 

MARAD’s Ship Disposal program. This level of funding is equal to 

the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and the budget request. This 
91 

level of funding, in addition to the anticipated carryover from previous appropriations, is sufficient to meet the terms and conditions 

of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet settlement and continued activities related to NS Savannah. The total number of obsolete ships 

not yet under contract and awaiting disposal is down to 25. This 

is a historic low for the program. 

The Committee directs MARAD to take all actions practicable 

and reasonable to align the scope of vessels listed for inspection in 

the notice of vessel visitation to the subsequent notice of vessels 

available for sale. Further, MARAD shall make best value determinations and award ship recycling contracts no later than 90 days 

from the close of the ship specific solicitation period for sales offers 

and/or price revisions for vessel dismantlement/recycling services. 

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM [TITLE XI]

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $38,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 3,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,100,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Guaranteed Loan program was established pursuant to title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended. 

The program provides for a full faith and credit guarantee by the 

U.S. Government of debt obligations issued by: (1) U.S. or foreign 

ship-owners for the purposes of financing or refinancing either 

U.S.-flag vessels or eligible export vessels constructed, reconstructed, or reconditioned in U.S. shipyards; and (2) U.S. shipyards, 

for the purpose of financing advanced shipbuilding technology of 

privately owned general shipyard facilities located in the United 

States. Under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, appropriations to cover the estimated costs of a project must be obtained 

prior to the issuance of any approvals for title XI financing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides an appropriation of $7,100,000 for the 

loan guarantee program, of which $3,100,000 shall be used for administrative expenses of the maritime loan guarantee program. 

This level of funding is $4,000,000 more than the President’s budget request and $31,400,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted 

level. The Committee recognizes the importance that the title XI 

program provides for the advancement of shipbuilding, aiding the 

U.S.-flag fleet, and sustainment of jobs for this critical sector of our 

national defense. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 170 authorizes the Maritime Administration to furnish 

utilities and to service and make repairs to any lease, contract, or 

occupancy involving Government property under the control of 

MARAD. Rental payments received pursuant to this provision shall 

be credited to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 
92 

PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration 

[PHMSA] was established in the Department of Transportation on 

November 30, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research 

and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108–246). 

PHMSA is responsible for the Department’s pipeline safety program as well as oversight of hazardous materials transportation 

safety operations. The administration is dedicated to safety, including the elimination of transportation-related deaths and injuries 

associated with hazardous materials and pipeline transportation, 

and to promoting transportation solutions that enhance communities and protect the environment. 

OPERATIONAL EXPENSES

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $21,654,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 22,225,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,225,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds program support costs for PHMSA, including 

policy development, civil rights, management, administration, and 

agency-wide expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $22,225,000 for this account of 

which $1,500,000 may be transferred to the Office of Pipeline Safety for Information Grants to Communities. This level of funding is 

equal to the budget request and $571,000 more than the fiscal year 

2014 enacted level. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $45,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 1 ......................................................................... 46,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 52,000,000 

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

$6,000,000, bringing the request level down to $46,000,000. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

PHMSA oversees the safety of more than 6.1 million tons of hazardous materials shipments daily in the United States, using risk 

management principles and security threat assessments to fully assess and reduce the risks inherent in hazardous materials transportation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $52,000,000 for 

hazardous materials safety, of which $7,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2017. The amount provided is equal to the 

administration’s budget request and $7,000,000 more than the fis-
93 

cal year 2014 enacted level. The increase in funding is provided to 

accommodate classification research, develop tank car design 

standards for liquefied natural gas, and conduct emergency response training and outreach. The Committee recommendation also 

includes $1,365,000 for additional regulatory, acquisitions, and hazardous materials safety inspection and enforcement staff. 

Classification Research, Testing and Standard Operating Procedures for Sample Collection.—The classification of flammable liquids establishes the requirements for packaging, hazard communications, operational controls, and safety and security planning for 

the rest of the supply chain. Proper classification ensures that 

emergency responders understand the hazards of the product being 

shipped and how to respond should there be an accident. The Committee recommendation includes $2,400,000 for research activities 

related to the testing of crude oil to determine the most appropriate test criteria, sampling methods, and testing procedures for 

energy products. This will help to identify any existing regulatory 

safety gaps with respect to classification and the correct selection 

of packing group. 

Tank Car Design.—There is indisputable evidence that the existing DOT–111 tank car design is an inadequate standard for the 

transportation of hazardous flammable liquids like crude oil and 

ethanol. The rail industry has taken meaningful, voluntary steps to 

improve tank car design specifications for the transportation of 

these commodities with the introduction of new standards in October 2011. Additional safety measures have been discussed to supplement these improvements after recent incidents at Lac 

Megantic, Quebec; Casselton, North Dakota; Aliceville, Alabama; 

and, Lynchburg, Virginia. PHMSA began regulatory action on this 

issue in September 2013. It is critical to establish a higher Federal 

regulatory standard for the transportation of these energy commodities to ensure the safety of communities and the environment. The 

Committee directs the Secretary to finalize the tank car design regulations no later than October 1, 2014. This is a long overdue safety standard that demands immediate action. 

Transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas.—Liquefied Natural Gas 

[LNG] is another energy commodity experiencing increased use as 

a fuel source for manufacturing and multiple modes of transportation. Current regulations for the handling and shipment of LNG 

are outdated and need to be reassessed. The Committee recommendation includes $1,400,000 to research, identify and establish a baseline bulk tank car and locomotive tender design standard for LNG, consistent with the budget request. PHMSA is directed to collaborate with FRA and the American Association of 

Railroads Tank Car Committee on this engineering analysis to inform future regulatory activity. 

Comprehensive Oil Spill Response Plans.—An oil spill response 

plan is intended to help the carrier identify and deploy a response 

organization to contain and remediate an oil release. The plans require carriers to identify a qualified individual with full authority 

to implement removal actions; ensure by contract or other means 

the availability of private personnel and equipment to remove a 

worst-case discharge; and describe training, equipment testing, 

drills and exercises. 
94 

The NTSB has found that PHMSA regulations for oil spill response plans for the railroad industry are outdated and do not take 

into consideration the risks posed by the shipment of millions of 

barrels of oil per day in 120 tank car unit trains. Current regulations for comprehensive oil spill response plans are based on a single bulk packing unit of crude oil that exceeds 42,000 gallons, well 

above the quantity of crude oil that a single tank car can carry. 

This difference effectively exempts the rail industry from common 

sense safety requirements that other large shippers of crude oil— 

the maritime and pipeline industries—must meet. The Committee 

agrees with NTSB’s concerns and directs PHMSA to re-evaluate 

whether the bulk packaging threshold for crude oil shipments by 

rail that would warrant the development of comprehensive oil spill 

response plans by rail carriers. 

User Fee Proposal.—In the fiscal year 2013–2015 budget proposals, PHMSA proposed the creation of a user fee to reduce the 

burden on the Federal taxpayer for financing special permit and 

approvals activities. The Committee finds that the program provides benefits to identifiable users above and beyond what is provided normally to the public, and the establishment of a user fee 

is fully justified under GAO guidelines and authorities granted by 

31 U.S.C. 9701. However, the Committee believes that such a fee 

should be established through the regulatory process or should be 

addressed through the authorization process. 

Small-Scale Natural Gas Liquefaction Facilities.—Concerns have 

been raised about PHMSA’s regulation of the siting of small-scale 

liquefaction facilities that generate and package LNG for use as a 

transportation fuel. These facilities are regulated by title 49 Code 

of Federal Regulations part 193, which was developed to address 

safety standards for LNG facilities used in the transportation of 

gas by pipeline and subject to the pipeline safety laws. The Committee believes these regulations are outdated, excessively challenging, and do not take into account the reduction in scale of these 

smaller facilities that provide fuel to vehicles and vessels. To address these concerns, PHMSA is directed to initiate a rulemaking 

or alternative risk-based compliance regime that incorporates more 

recent industry standards while preserving appropriate protections 

for public safety. 

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

(PIPELINE SAFETY DESIGN REVIEW FUND)

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $119,087,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 158,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 158,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] is designed to promote the 

safe, reliable, and sound transportation of natural gas and hazardous liquids through the Nation’s 2.6 million miles of privately 

owned and operated pipelines. 
95 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Pipeline Safety Office has the important responsibility of ensuring the safety and integrity of the pipelines that run through 

every community in our Nation. Efforts by Congress and the OPS 

to invest in promising safety technologies, increase civil penalties, 

and educate communities about the potential risks of pipelines 

have resulted in a reduction in serious pipeline incidents. It is essential that the agency continue to make strides in protecting communities from pipeline failures and incidents. To that end, the 

Committee recommends an appropriation of $158,000,000 for the 

Office of Pipeline Safety. The amount is $38,913,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2014 enacted level and equal to the budget request. Of 

the funding provided, $19,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund, $136,500,000 shall be derived from the 

Pipeline Safety Fund, and $2,000,000 shall be derived from the 

Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund. 

This level of funding provides resources to hire additional safety 

training instructors, State safety grant specialists, and pipeline 

safety inspectors, as requested. The recommendation includes an 

increase of $10,000,000 for the State Pipeline Safety Grant Program and $12,310,000 for research and development activities, consistent with the budget request. Of the funds recommended for research and development, a minimum of $1,500,000 shall be used to 

continue efforts to develop inline inspection devices, known as 

smart pigs, that are capable of inspecting older pipelines that currently cannot be pigged, and up to $2,000,000 shall be used for the 

Pipeline Safety Research Competitive Academic Agreement Program [CAAP] to focus on near-term solutions to improve the safety 

and reliability of the Nation’s pipeline transportation system. 

Integrity Management.—On August 25, 2011, nearly 3 years ago, 

the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

[PHMSA] within the Department of Transportation [DOT] put forward an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking [ANPRM] to determine if changes were needed to the regulations governing the 

safety of gas transmission pipelines. Within title 49 Code of Federal Regulations part 192, PHMSA was seeking information to determine if integrity management [IM] standards should be revised 

and strengthened to bring more pipeline mileage under IM requirements to better assure the safety of pipeline segments within high 

consequence areas [HCAs]. PHMSA was also attempting to determine if non-IM requirements should be strengthened or expanded 

to address other issues associated with pipeline safety integrity. To 

date, the rule has never been sent to the Office of Management and 

Budget [OMB] for review and not been proposed. Whereas we understand the importance of the rule, the Committee believes that 

PHMSA should have received sufficient input in the past 33 

months to develop and propose a rule. 

Maintaining and improving the safety of our Nation’s pipeline 

system and energy infrastructure are critically important issues for 

our Nation’s citizens. In addition to improving safety, it is essential 

that policies are put in place that enable investments which upgrade and modernize the Nation’s energy infrastructure. This is 

important to providing our economy with abundant, low-cost, reli-
96 

able supplies of energy required to stimulate economic growth 

while achieving energy and environmental objectives. In particular, 

the Nation requires additional pipelines and related systems to 

meet increased demand for natural gas, which is playing an increasingly important role in meeting national energy requirements. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $28,318,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 28,318,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,318,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 

1990 [HMTUSA] requires PHMSA to (1) develop and implement a 

reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 

public sector emergency response training and planning, and provide technical assistance to States, political subdivisions and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and periodically update a mandatory 

training curriculum for emergency responders. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $28,318,000 and an equal obligation 

limitation for the emergency preparedness grant program. The recommendation provides PHMSA the authority to use $4,974,000 in 

prior year carryover and recaptures to develop a Web-based hazardous materials response training curriculum for emergency responders, including response activities for crude oil, ethanol and 

other flammable liquids by rail. The training curriculum shall be 

developed in coordination with the FRA and be consistent with National Fire Protection Association standards. Of the total amounts 

available from prior years carry over, a minimum of $3,500,000 

shall be used to train public sector emergency response personnel 

in communities on or near rail lines that transport a significant 

volume of high-risk energy commodities or toxic inhalation hazards. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

SAFETYADMINISTRATION

Section 180. This section would increase the administrative costs 

for management of the Emergency Preparedness Grant program 

from 2 percent to 4 percent. This authority will assist PHMSA in 

addressing oversight, outreach and efficiency gaps identified by the 

DOT Inspector General. 

Section 181. The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job 

Creation Act 2011 (Public Law 112–90) established a new fee for 

companies engaged in the design, permitting and construction of 

new pipeline projects. This section clarifies the use of the fee collections as an offset to discretionary spending rather than as a mandatory receipt. 
97 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $85,605,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 86,223,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 86,223,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective organization, with a mission to: 

—conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the 

programs and operations of the Department; 

—provide leadership and recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations; 

—prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and 

—keep the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding 

problems and deficiencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $86,223,000 for activities of the Office of the Inspector General, which is equal to the 

President’s budget request and $618,000 more than the fiscal year 

2014 enacted level. 

Audit Reports.—The Committee requests the Inspector General 

continue to forward copies of all audit reports to the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major acquisition project or grant, or 

which recommends significant budgetary savings. The OIG is also 

directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 15 days 

any final audit or investigative report which was requested by the 

House or Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Sole-Source Contracts.—The Committee has included a provision 

in section 408 that requires all departments and agencies in this 

act to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on all sole-source contracts, including the contractor, the 

amount of the contract, and the rationale for a sole-source procurement as opposed to a market-based procurement. The Committee 

directs the Inspector General to assess any conflicts of interest 

with regard to these contracts and DOT. 

Unfair Business Practices.—The bill maintains language which 

authorizes the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or 

deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers and ticket agents. 
98 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation 

Crediting 

offsetting 

collections 

Appropriations, 2014 .......................................................................................................... $31,000,000 $1,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 1 ..................................................................................................... 31,500,000 1,250,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 31,500,000 1,250,000 

1 STB submitted a budget request independently proposing a total appropriation of $34,441,000. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Surface Transportation Board [STB] was created on January 

1, 1996, by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act 

of 1995 [ICCTA] (Public Law 104–88). The Board is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT, and is responsible for the regulation 

of the rail and pipeline industries and certain nonlicensing regulation of motor carriers and water carriers. 

STB’s rail oversight activities include rate reasonableness, car 

service and interchange, mergers, line acquisitions, line constructions, and abandonments. STB’s jurisdiction also includes certain 

oversight of the intercity bus industry, pipeline carriers, intercity 

passenger train service, rate regulation involving noncontiguous 

domestic water transportation, household goods carriers, and collectively determined motor carrier rates. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $31,500,000. This funding level is equal to the budget request and $500,000 

more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. Included in the recommendation is $1,250,000 in fees, which will offset the appropriated funding. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Section 190 allows funds for maintenance and operation of aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, 

as authorized by law. 

Section 191 limits appropriations for services authorized by 5 

U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an Executive Level IV. 

Section 192 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and expenses 

of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation. 

Section 193 prohibits recipients of funds made available in the 

act from releasing personal information, including Social Security 

numbers, medical and disability information, and photographs, 

from a driver’s license or motor vehicle record without the express 

consent of the person to whom such information pertains; and prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from withholding funds provided in this act from any grantee in noncompliance with this provision. 

Section 194 allows funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration from States, counties, municipalities, other 
99 

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. 
(100) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was 

established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public 

Law 89–174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the 

principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned with 

the Nation’s housing needs, fair housing opportunities, and improving and developing the Nation’s communities. 

In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and interests of 

the Nation’s communities and of the people who live and work in 

them, HUD administers mortgage and loan insurance programs 

that help families become homeowners and facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and homeownership subsidy programs 

for low-income families who otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid 

neighborhood rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of our urban centers from blight and decay. 

HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the marketplace, and fosters programs and research that stimulate and 

guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but better 

communities and living environments. 

As HUD works to fulfill its mission, the Committee urges the 

Secretary to enhance efforts to provide decent, affordable housing 

and to promote economic development for rural Americans. When 

designing programs and making funding decisions, the Secretary 

shall take into consideration the unique conditions, challenges, and 

scale of rural areas. 

The Committee notes that poverty is far too prevalent in the 

United States. HUD should work with Congress and other partners 

to implement policies and support proven anti-poverty programs 

that reduce the existence of poverty and the suffering associated 

with it. The Committee also encourages HUD to increase interagency collaboration to ensure Federal resources are strategically 

deployed in order to achieve the most effective outcomes, while also 

reducing overlap and duplication. 

Reprogramming and Congressional Notification.—The Committee 

reiterates that the Department must limit the reprogramming of 

funds between the programs, projects, and activities within each 

account without prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations. Unless otherwise identified in the bill or report, the most detailed allocation of funds presented in the budget justifications is 

approved, with any deviation from such approved allocation subject 

to the normal reprogramming requirements. Except as specifically 

provided otherwise, it is the intent of the Committee that all carry-
101 

over funds in the various accounts, including recaptures and de-obligations, are subject to the normal reprogramming requirements 

outlined above. No change may be made to any program, project, 

or activity if it is construed to be new policy or a change in policy, 

without prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations. The 

Committee also directs HUD to include a separate delineation of 

any reprogramming of funds requiring approval be included in the 

operating plan required by section 405 of this act. Finally, the 

Committee expects to be notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs or activities prior to the implementation of such reorganizations, as well as be notified, on a monthly basis, of all ongoing litigation, including any negotiations or discussions, planned 

or ongoing, regarding a consent decree between the Department 

and any other entity, including the estimated costs of such decrees. 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

EXECUTIVE OFFICES

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $14,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 15,234,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,700,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Executive Offices account provides the salaries and expenses 

funding to support the Department’s senior leadership and other 

key functions, including the immediate offices of the Secretary, 

Deputy Secretary, Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, 

Public Affairs, Adjudicatory Services, the Center for Faith-Based 

and Community Initiatives, and the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

this heading. 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT OFFICES

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $506,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 530,783,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 519,867,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administrative Support Offices account is the backbone of 

HUD’s operations, and consists of several offices that are supposed 

to work seamlessly to provide the leadership and support services 

to ensure the Department performs its core mission and is compliant with all legal, operational, and financial guidelines. This account funds the salaries and expenses of the Office of General 

Counsel, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the 

Chief Procurement Officer, the Office of Departmental Equal Em-
102 

ployment Opportunity, the Office of Field Policy and Management, 

the Office of Strategic Planning and Management, the Office of the 

Chief Human Capital Officer, the Office of Administration, and the 

Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $519,867,000 for this account, which is $13,867,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 

enacted level and $10,916,000 less than the budget request. 

The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposes one amount of 

funding for all offices under the heading of administrative support 

offices, eliminating budget line items for each office. The Committee created the existing funding structure to increase the transparency of HUD’s personnel funding. Over the years, the Committee has modified the structure to make it more effective. For example, in fiscal year 2012, the Committee consolidated funding provided separately for personnel and non-personnel funding into one 

allocation for each office, and in fiscal year 2014 it created the Executive Offices account for management offices with smaller funding needs. Moreover, the Committee has worked with HUD to respond to reprogramming requests necessary to address funding 

challenges that have arisen during the fiscal year. Therefore, the 

Committee recommendation rejects this latest proposal to modify 

the structure. The Committee expects HUD to manage its resources as provided and will continue to work with it to address 

challenges that come up during the year. 

Funds are made available as follows: 

Amount 

Office of Chief Human Capital Officer ................................................................................................................ $58,000,000 

Office of Administration ....................................................................................................................................... 198,800,000 

Office of Chief Financial Officer .......................................................................................................................... 48,000,000 

Office of Chief Procurement Officer .................................................................................................................... 16,330,000 

Office of Field Policy and Management .............................................................................................................. 51,135,000 

Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity ..................................................................................... 3,202,000 

Office of General Counsel .................................................................................................................................... 94,640,000 

Office of Strategic Planning and Management ................................................................................................... 4,560,000 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................................................................................... 45,200,000 

Office of the Chief Information Officer.—The Committee recommendation includes $45,200,000 for this office, which is 

$9,415,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. This increase is associated with a budget realignment that is moving funding for contractor support to this account from the ‘‘Information 

Technology Fund’’ account, since these costs are more appropriately 

categorized as salaries and expenses than IT funding. 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer.—The recommendation for 

the OCFO reflects reduced staffing as a result of the shared services agreement with the Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s Administrative Resource Center. When accounting for this change, funding is 

available to maintain the rest of its workforce. The Committee remains focused on the staffing levels in the Office of Budget, and directs HUD to move expeditiously to address staffing needs there. 

The Committee commends the work of the Appropriations Law 

Division in the OCFO and encourages the Department to maximize 

its use of this valuable resource. The Committee reminds the De-
103 

partment of its intent that all appropriations law issues be referred 

to and addressed by such division. 

Procurement.—The Committee directs HUD to continue to provide semi-annual updates to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations on how system and process changes made in the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer [CPO] have impacted its ability to execute contracts. These should include quantifiable measures of progress, such as the time it takes to execute a contract or 

reduced overtime, in comparison to previous fiscal years and government standards. The Committee notes that CPO has not submitted these reports in a timely manner and expects it to be more 

responsive in the future. 

PROGRAM OFFICES SALARIES AND EXPENSES

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $205,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 213,664,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 205,525,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 46 field offices in the Office of Public 

and Indian Housing [PIH]. PIH is charged with ensuring the availability of safe, decent, and affordable housing, creating opportunities for residents’ self-sufficiency and economic independence, and 

assuring the fiscal integrity of all public housing agencies. The Office ensures that safe, decent and affordable housing is available to 

Native American families, creates economic opportunities for tribes 

and Indian housing residents, assists tribes in the formulation of 

plans and strategies for community development, and assures fiscal 

integrity in the operation of its programs. The Office also administers programs authorized in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 [NAHASDA], which provides housing assistance to Native Americans and Native Hawaiians. PIH also manages the Housing Choice Voucher program, in 

which tenant-based vouchers increase affordable housing choices 

for low-income families. Tenant-based vouchers enable families to 

lease safe, decent, and affordable privately owned rental housing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $205,525,000 for 

this account, which is $8,139,000 less than the budget request and 

$525,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The Committee recommendation supports existing personnel, and will allow 

the agency to make critical hires as a result of a reduction of 

$3,700,000 in non-personnel services that was provided in fiscal 

year 2014 for a one-time contract. The Committee directs HUD to 

continue to focus these resources on strengthening its oversight 

functions, including oversight of Moving-to-Work agencies. Within 

the funds provided, HUD is directed to dedicate one FTE to the Office of Native American Programs to work on coordinating and 

streamlining environmental reviews required by various Federal 

departments for Native American housing projects. In addition, the 
104 

Committee directs HUD to provide at least one additional FTE to 

work on the Family Self-Sufficiency and ROSS programs. Finally, 

the funding level includes additional resources requested for travel 

associated with grantee oversight. 

The Committee also urges HUD to look for ways to better integrate offices within PIH. The Committee notes that various offices 

within PIH share responsibility for overseeing public housing agencies and the programs that they run. It is imperative that these 

different facets of PIH improve coordination to reduce the amount 

of information they request from PHAs, look for ways to create efficiencies, and ensure policies align across programs. 

The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue 

inspection efforts funded in fiscal year 2014. This includes efforts 

to move to a consistent inspection standard across housing assistance programs, as well as oversight of section 8 units. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $102,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 110,535,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 103,300,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding for Community 

Planning and Development [CPD] staff in headquarters and in 43 

field offices. CPD’s mission is to support successful urban, suburban and rural communities by promoting integrated approaches to 

community and economic development. CPD programs also assist 

in the expansion of opportunities for low- and moderate-income individuals and families in moving towards home ownership. The Assistant Secretary for CPD administers formula and competitive 

grant programs, as well as guaranteed loan programs, that help 

communities plan and finance their growth and development. 

These programs also help communities increase their capacity to 

govern and provide shelter and services for homeless persons and 

other persons with special needs, including person with HIV/AIDS. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $103,300,000 for 

the staffing within this office, which is $7,235,000 less than the 

budget request and $1,300,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The recommendation also includes funding for the Office of Economic Resilience. The recommended level of funding, 

which reflects savings in fiscal year 2015 due to the completion of 

a contract, will support additional FTE focused on grant oversight 

and monitoring, as well as additional support for the Section 108 

loan program. 

HOUSING

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $381,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 386,677,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 386,677,000 
105 

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 handicapped, 

and to conduct several regulatory functions. The Office also administers Federal Housing Administration [FHA] programs. FHA administers HUD’s mortgage and loan insurance programs, which facilitate the financing of new construction, rehabilitation or the purchase of existing dwelling units. The Office also provides services 

to maintain and preserve homeownership, especially for underserved populations. This assistance allows lenders to make lower 

cost financing available to more borrowers for home and home improvement loans, and apartment, hospital, and nursing home loans. 

FHA provides a vital link in addressing America’s homeownership 

and affordable housing needs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $386,677,000 for 

staffing in the Office of Housing, which is equal to the budget request and $5,177,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

The Committee has also directed that at least $9,000,000 be dedicated to the Office of Risk and Regulatory Affairs. 

At the end of April 2013, HUD proposed to reorganize the Office 

of Multifamily Housing. The plan is designed to streamline operations, improve program delivery, and save taxpayer funding. After 

examination of the proposal, the Committee approved a modified 

plan that reorganizes offices at headquarters and consolidates the 

production functions into 12 field offices. However, the plan maintains asset management functions and associated staff in existing 

field offices. This adjustment was made to ensure that HUD would 

maintain a presence in communities near Federal assets. The Committee recognizes that HUD still intends to continue to pursue a 

broader consolidation. However, the Committee directs HUD not to 

make any changes to the approved plan in fiscal year 2015. Instead, HUD should monitor the implementation of the staff 

changes in the field, as well as the process changes occurring in all 

offices. Further, HUD is directed to report to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations within 180 days of enactment of this 

act on how the reorganization is proceeding, any issues identified 

with the initial waves of the transition, how such changes are affecting program oversight and delivery, and any adjustments that 

HUD plans to make based on lessons learned. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $22,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 23,248,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,300,000 
106 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 16 field locations in the Office of Policy Development and Research [PD&R]. PD&R supports the Department’s efforts to help create cohesive, economically healthy 

communities. PD&R is responsible for maintaining current information on housing needs, market conditions, and existing programs, as well as conducting research on priority housing and community development issues. The office provides reliable and objective data and analysis to help inform policy decisions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,300,000 for 

this account, which is $948,000 less than the budget request and 

$300,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

PD&R collects and distributes data on HUD programs, the people HUD serves, and housing needs across the country. The information it makes available and the analysis it provides to the Department are essential to moving HUD to outcomes based performance measures. The Committee also relies on the data and research 

provided by PD&R to inform its work. The recommended amount 

will ensure that PD&R can continue to play this important role. 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $69,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 77,629,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 69,700,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 42 field locations in the Office of Fair 

Housing and Equal Opportunity [FHEO]. FHEO is responsible for 

investigating, resolving, and prosecuting complaints of housing discrimination, as well as conducting education and outreach activities to increase awareness of the requirements of the Fair Housing 

Act. The Office also develops and interprets fair housing policy, 

processes complaints, performs compliance reviews, and provides 

oversight and technical assistance to local housing authorities and 

community development agencies regarding section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $69,700,000, 

which is $7,929,000 less than the budget request and $700,000 

more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL AND HEALTHY HOMES

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $7,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 7,879,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,075,000 
107 

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 $7,075,000 for 

this account, which is $804,000 less than the budget request and 

$75,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... $10,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Rental Assistance Demonstration [RAD] is testing a potentially promising model to preserve public housing. Participation in 

the program by public housing agencies is voluntary and involves 

the conversion of existing public housing units to an improved form 

of property-based rental assistance. This form of rental assistance 

would enable public housing agencies to leverage private sector resources in order to recapitalize this housing stock and maintain 

these units of affordable housing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for the 

Rental Assistance Demonstration, equal to the President’s budget 

request. No funding was provided for RAD in fiscal year 2014. In 

fiscal year 2012, the Committee began a demonstration to test the 

success of converting public housing and other assisted housing to 

section 8 vouchers or project-based section 8 contracts as a means 

of recapitalizing and preserving the long-term viability of affordable housing. 

The recommended funding level will allow HUD to convert 3,000 

units of public housing in high-poverty neighborhoods that would 

be unable to address their capital needs without an increased subsidy. The Committee has included this funding because it is committed to preserving desperately needed affordable housing and believes RAD is a critical part of accomplishing that goal. 

In fiscal year 2012, the Committee set a cap of 60,000 on the 

number of units that could participate in the demonstration. At the 

time, it seemed sufficient to accommodate PHA demand for the pro-
108 

gram. However, the interest has far exceeded this level; at the end 

of December 2013, there were applications covering over 175,000 

units. While the administration has requested lifting the cap entirely, the Committee understands the interest in learning more 

about the outcomes of the program before doing so. Therefore, the 

Committee has included language that raises the cap to 185,000 

units, which will provide all PHAs that applied before the cap was 

reached an opportunity to participate in the program. 

In addition to the conversion of public housing, the Committee 

recommendation also includes language that will allow single room 

occupancy [SRO], rent supplemental and rental housing assistance 

payment projects to convert to section 8. While no new projects are 

funded through these rental assistance programs, HUD continues 

to administer existing projects, all of which have different rules 

and requirements. The Committee hopes that the gradual consolidation of these projects into HUD’s existing mainstream rental assistance programs will create efficiencies and address GAO’s concerns about the number of rental assistance programs. In addition, 

the Committee expects that by putting these projects on a more 

modern and familiar housing platform, it will secure their longterm affordability. 

The Committee encourages housing authorities that participate 

in the Rental Assistance Demonstration program to grant current 

workers whose employment positions are eliminated during conversion the right of first refusal for new employment openings for 

which they are qualified. 

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2014 1 ........................................................................... $19,177,218,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 1 ......................................................................... 20,045,000,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 19,562,160,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the section 8 tenant-based 

(voucher) program. Section 8 tenant-based housing assistance is 

one of the principle appropriations for Federal housing assistance, 

serving approximately 2.2 million families. The program also funds 

incremental vouchers for tenants who live in properties where the 

owner has decided to leave the section 8 program. The program 

also provides for the replacement of units lost from the assisted 

housing inventory through its tenant protection vouchers. Under 

these programs, eligible low-income individuals families pay 30 

percent of their adjusted income for rent, and the Federal Government is responsible for the remainder of the rent, up to the fair 

market rent or some other payment standard. This account also 

provides funding for administrative fees for public housing authorities, mainstream vouchers, and Housing and Urban Development 

Veterans Supportive Housing [HUD–VASH] programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,562,160,000 

for fiscal year 2015, including $4,000,000,000 as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1, 2014. This amount is 
109 

$482,840,000 less than the budget request and $384,942,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

The Committee recommends $17,719,000,000 for the renewal 

costs of section 8 vouchers, which is $287,550,000 less than the 

budget request and $353,473,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 

enacted level. 

The section 8 rental assistance program is a critical tool that enables more than 2 million low-income individuals and families to 

access safe, stable and affordable housing in the private market. 

In recognition of the section 8 program’s central role in ensuring 

housing for vulnerable Americans, the Committee recommendation 

includes sufficient resources to ensure that no current voucher 

holders are put at risk of losing their housing. The recommended 

funding level reflects an inflation adjustment that reduces voucher 

costs from the original budget request. It also supports the firsttime renewal of incremental vouchers that were funded in prior 

years, including HUD–VASH vouchers. The Committee will continue to monitor leasing data to make sure residents are protected. 

Last year, the Committee included several reform provisions designed to reduce program costs or create efficiencies in program delivery. While this is an important step in improving the program, 

the Committee hopes that a broader section 8 reform bill will be 

enacted. A full reform bill is expected to modernize other aspects 

of the program and expand the Moving to Work [MTW] program, 

while increasing reporting by MTW agencies. 

In the absence of a reform bill, the Committee expects HUD to 

update regulations that don’t require congressional action. In recent years, PHAs have faced serious funding constraints, and the 

Committee voiced concerns at HUD’s budget hearing on the burdensome requirements they must continue to meet. It is therefore 

imperative that HUD work to ensure scarce administrative dollars 

are directed toward requirements that will ensure housing safety 

standards, protect residents, and save taxpayer dollars. It is clear 

that some existing regulations are creating burdens for PHAs with 

little benefit to the oversight of the program. At the same time, 

HUD should be requiring different information that would provide 

better insight into its programs and improve its oversight. In fiscal 

year 2014, the Committee required HUD to report on regulations 

that need to be updated or new regulations that should be promulgated. The report is expected in July, and the Committee expects 

that this will be a comprehensive and thoughtful report with recommendations upon which HUD and Congress can act. 

Cash Management.—The Committee notes that the Office of Inspector General’s audit of HUD’s fiscal year 2013 financial statements identified a material weakness in PIH’s cash management 

process. Specifically, it found that the process departs from GAAP 

and Treasury requirements. The Committee has voiced concern 

with PIH’s cash management practices before this finding, particularly since it limits understanding of the true funding needs in the 

voucher program. 

The Committee notes that tenant-based assistance is not fundamentally different from public housing or project-based assistance, yet it is the only rental assistance program at the Depart-
110 

ment that disburses funds without the housing authority or project 

owner submitting a request for reimbursement. 

The Committee stresses the importance of resolving this audit 

finding swiftly and implementing a cash management process that 

complies with GAAP and Treasury requirements, and also provides 

greater transparency into voucher renewal needs. Therefore, HUD 

is directed to submit a plan to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this act, identifying how the Department will implement new cash management 

policies during fiscal year 2015 and require housing authorities to 

draw down funds; a practice most housing authorities already do 

through the public housing programs. 

Finance and Governance.—PHAs are local entities managed by 

housing boards and commissioners that provide oversight at the 

local level. In examining the circumstances that result in public 

housing authorities becoming troubled, problems with finance and 

governance are often the root cause. The Committee notes that PIH 

launched the PHA Recovery and Sustainability model to focus resources and attention on improving troubled or near-troubled 

PHAs, and specifically governance and financial management. 

While the vast majority of housing authorities operate their programs effectively, the Committee believes that HUD should be providing this type of information and training to all PHAs, not just 

those that are troubled or near troubled. 

In fiscal year 2014, the Committee directed HUD to work with 

its OIG to determine the critical skills that PHA boards should 

have to effectively oversee PHA operations, as well as the actions 

HUD will take to ensure that PHAs possess them. The Committee 

understands this work is beginning in fiscal year 2014, and looks 

forward to the report HUD must submit in July on its findings and 

how it will ensure PHA Boards have the necessary skills to adequately perform their duties. 

Set-Asides for Special Circumstances.—The Committee has provided a set-aside of $75,000,000 to allow the Secretary to adjust allocations to PHAs under certain circumstances. Qualifying factors 

include: (1) a significant increase, as determined by the Secretary, 

in renewal costs of tenant-based rental assistance resulting from 

unforeseen circumstances and voucher utilization or the impact 

from portability under section 8(r) of the act; (2) vouchers that 

were not in use during the previous 12-month period in order to 

be available to meet a commitment pursuant to section 8(o)(13) of 

the act; (3) adjustments or costs associated with HUD–VASH 

vouchers; and (4) possible termination of families as a result of insufficient funding. A PHA should not receive an adjustment to its 

allocation from the funding provided under this section if the Secretary determines that such PHA, through negligence or intentional actions, would exceed its authorized level of vouchers. 

Pilot for Homeless Native Americans.—Since 2008, the Committee has been providing funding for the joint HUD–Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program [HUD–VASH] aimed at ending 

veteran homelessness. The success of this effort can be seen in the 

results of HUD’s most recent Point-in-Time count in 2013, which 

showed that homelessness among veterans has been reduced by 

over 24 percent since 2010. 
111 

However, as a result of program rules, these vouchers are not 

available to serve Native American veterans living on tribal lands 

that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. While limited data 

has made assessing need difficult, in fiscal year 2012, the VA conducted an analysis on the number of at-risk veterans living in Indian Country. Its limited analysis found that at least 2,047 veterans served by VA homeless programs were likely living in these 

areas, which demonstrates the need for supportive housing assistance. Moreover, tribes are seeking access to HUD–VASH vouchers 

to assist their veterans. While differences in programs and the limited availability of housing in Indian Country makes adoption of 

the existing HUD–VASH model challenging, the Committee wants 

to understand how to effectively meet this need. 

While the administration requested the flexibility to provide 

vouchers to tribally designated housing entities for use on reservations, the Committee is instead requiring HUD to set aside a portion of HUD–VASH funding for a pilot designed to provide housing 

and supportive services to veterans who are homeless or at-risk of 

homelessness living on tribal reservations or in Indian areas. The 

Committee directs HUD to set aside a sufficient amount of funding 

to evaluate this model and test it on reservations and Indian areas 

in different locations. 

The rental assistance and administrative costs associated with 

this pilot will be run through the Indian Housing Block Grant program to ensure funding is provided to appropriate housing providers and that there is consistency in the implementation of rental 

assistance and program rules for selected providers. The Office of 

Native American Programs [ONAP] should work with PIH’s Voucher Office on effective ways to apply the HUD–VASH model on tribal lands. The Voucher Office and ONAP should work together with 

the Department of Veterans Affairs on referrals to the program and 

to ensure services are appropriately provided to participating veterans. Given the unique housing challenges on reservations that 

will require modifications to the existing HUD–VASH model, HUD 

should consider using vouchers to facilitate the creation of new 

housing. The Committee has also included funding to provide culturally appropriate technical assistance to tribes administering the 

housing-plus services model. 

HUD–VASH Move-in Costs.—The Committee notes that move-in 

costs can present a problem for homeless veterans trying to secure 

housing as part of the HUD–VASH program. The Committee recognizes this challenge and urges HUD to work with the VA, as well 

as local and national organizations to identify resources that can 

be used to assist homeless veterans with these expenses. 

Administrative Fees.—The Committee recommends 

$1,555,000,000 for administrative fees, which is $150,000,000 less 

than the budget request and $55,000,000 more than the fiscal year 

2014 enacted level. 

In fiscal year 2008, the Committee provided HUD with funding 

to begin a study on the amount of administrative fees necessary for 

PHAs to effectively manage their section 8 programs. The Committee received HUD’s preliminary assessment, and looks forward 

to the comprehensive study, which should provide more reliable information on which to base policy decisions. 
112 

Tenant Protection Vouchers.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $130,000,000 for tenant protection vouchers. These vouchers are provided to public housing residents whose buildings have 

health or safety issues, or whose projects are being demolished. 

However, the largest share of these vouchers is provided to tenants 

living in properties with expiring HUD assistance that may face 

rent increases if their owners opt out of HUD programs. In these 

instances, the vouchers ensure continued affordability of tenants’ 

housing. 

The Committee has included a new provision, as requested, that 

will limit reissuance of tenant protection vouchers that are provided to families temporarily displaced by demolition or rehabilitation of affordable housing. The Committee wants to ensure the protection of tenants and the preservation of affordable housing, and 

these vouchers help meet that goal. At the same time, these vouchers are not designed to increase the amount of affordable housing. 

Therefore, in a case where a voucher is substituting for a unit that 

is temporarily unavailable, but will be replaced, the voucher should 

end when the tenant using it either returns to the new or rehabilitated unit, or, if they choose not to occupy it, when he or she exits 

the program. 

Section 811 Mainstream Vouchers.—The Committee recommends 

$83,160,000 to continue the rental assistance and administrative 

costs of this program. While this amount is $25,290,000 below the 

President’s request, it is sufficient to maintain all existing vouchers. Due to the transition of the program from the project-based 

rental assistance account to the tenant-based rental assistance account, balances have accumulated that have been carried forward 

from year to year. The level of funding for fiscal year 2015 reflects 

the drawdown of these carryover balances to sustain the program. 

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(INCLUDES RESCISSIONS)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Until fiscal year 2005, the Housing Certificate Fund provided 

funding for both the project-based and tenant-based components of 

the section 8 program. Project-based rental assistance and 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 2015, consistent with the President’s 

request. The Committee has included language that will allow unobligated balances from specific accounts to be used to renew or 

amend Project-Based Rental Assistance contracts. 
113 

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $1,875,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 1,925,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,900,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for modernization and capital 

needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing authorities), including management improvements, resident relocation, 

and homeownership activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,900,000,000 for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is $25,000,000 less 

than the budget request and $25,000,000 more than the fiscal year 

2014 enacted level. 

Of the amount made available under this account, $45,000,000 is 

for supportive services for residents of public housing under the 

Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency [ROSS] program. The 

Committee also recommends up to $5,000,000 to support the ongoing financial and physical assessment activities performed by the 

Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC] and $3,000,000 for the cost 

of administrative and judicial receiverships. 

Flexibility To Meet Pressing Needs.—The Committee notes that 

the President’s budget proposed providing public housing authorities with full flexibility to move funds between their operating and 

capital funds. The Committee shares the goal of providing PHAs 

with the flexibility to meet their highest priority needs, and giving 

PHAs the tools to manage their portfolios more effectively. At the 

same time, the Committee is concerned that the administration’s 

proposal lacks sufficient transparency into how Federal funds will 

be spent. 

In an effort to achieve an appropriate balance between flexibility 

and accountability, the Committee has included alternative provisions designed to provide PHAs with mechanisms to better meet 

their capital and operations needs. The first provision provides 

PHAs with the authority to transfer up to 20 percent of their operating funds to their capital fund. This provides PHAs with not only 

the ability to reinvest operational savings in their properties, but 

also creates an incentive for them to do so. In addition, language 

is included for fiscal year 2015 that allows PHAs to transfer up to 

30 percent of their capital funds to their operating fund. 

A second provision permits housing authorities to establish and 

maintain replacement reserves. Establishing and maintaining replacement or capital reserves is common practice in real estate, 

and in fact, they are required for projects in HUD multifamily programs. However, the existing obligation deadlines for public housing capital funds prevent the establishment of such reserves. This 

limits the ability of PHAs to save for planned capital projects necessary to maintain housing in good condition. 

The Committee expects the Department to move quickly to set 

up the rules and requirements around the capital reserves so that 
114 

PHAs can utilize this new tool to address the significant backlog 

of capital needs and better plan for future capital requirements. 

This should include how HUD will ensure that funds are being 

saved for and spent on needed capital projects. 

Safety and Security in Public Housing.—In October 2013, HUD 

published a new capital fund rule, which included more detail on 

eligible uses of funding, and stated that certain ongoing safety and 

security costs are an ineligible use of capital funds. This change 

was not included in the proposed rule, and as a result, there was 

no opportunity for public comment on it. The Committee is concerned that the rule change will leave some public housing authorities unable to continue existing security functions that are necessary to protect public housing and ensure the safety of residents. 

The Committee has provided additional flexibility to PHAs by increasing the amount they can transfer from their public housing 

capital to operating fund to help address this concern, but has also 

provided HUD with the authority to waive the transfer limit in 

order to ensure that these important safety activities can continue. 

In addition, the Committee directs HUD to do an analysis of the 

impact of this change on the ability of housing authorities to ensure safety in their housing. Further, the Committee directs HUD 

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

Appropriations on these findings within 120 days of enactment of 

this act, including any recommendations to address problems it 

identifies. 

In addition, the Committee directs at least $6,000,000 of the 

$23,000,000 recommended for emergency capital needs be for safety 

and security measures necessary to address crime and drug-related 

activity in public housing. The Committee has included this specific 

set-aside because there are PHAs facing safety and security issues 

that rely on these funds to protect their tenants. The Committee 

notes that the demand for these funds continues to grow while the 

amount that HUD is awarding to PHAs is decreasing. The recommended level of funding represents an increase of $3,000,000 

over the fiscal year 2014 level to ensure that funding for needs associated with natural disasters as well as safety and security can 

be met within the appropriated level of funding, and urges HUD 

to award funds to PHAs as quickly as possible. 

Physical Needs Assessment.—The Committee notes the importance of being able to assess the physical quality of the public housing stock and to plan for regular maintenance, upkeep, and replacement. This information is critical to ensuring that limited 

Federal funding is targeted to effectively meet those needs, and 

every PHA should be able to identify the physical needs of their inventory. In an attempt to apply a degree of uniformity across 

PHAs, the department has developed a Physical Need Assessment 

[PNA] tool and issued a proposed rule governing its use. The Committee appreciates this well-intentioned effort. However, numerous 

concerns have been raised surrounding the metrics it seeks to 

measure and how, or if, all the collected data will be used to provide effective program oversight. Additional concerns have been 

raised that multiple offices within HUD are seeking to collect overlapping data using different collection methods, failing to coordinate their efforts within the department and adding unnecessarily 
115 

to PHAs’ administrative burdens. Concerns have also been raised 

about the ability of PHAs to easily convert their existing PNAs into 

the format directed by the department. Many public housing agencies already conduct physical needs assessments, yet some will 

incur additional costs to input this information into HUD’s new 

system. In its report to the Committee, HUD acknowledged that 

the costs associated with the PNA could be a burden for PHAs that 

lack the flexibility to absorb this initiative, and that small PHAs 

in particular will have a greater burden because they were not previously required to perform a PNA. 

Given the multiple concerns, the Committee directs the department to continue to evaluate the PNA proposed rule and to expand 

on its 2014 report to the Committees, which shall be transmitted 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 

2, 2015. This report should at a minimum: assess how the specific 

aspects of the PNA tool compare to PNAs utilized by HUD’s Office 

of Multi-Family Housing, and by unassisted housing managed by 

PHAs; review if all data sought by the proposed PNA are necessary 

or if simplification of the tool makes sense from an oversight and 

management perspective; reflect a department-wide effort to identify similar data collection requirements on PHAs to ensure no duplication or overlapping of requirements; and determine if the objectives of the PNA can be achieved by alternative means such as, 

but not limited to, collection as part of HUD’s Line of Credit Control System, or the acceptance of multiple formats. 

ROSS Program Oversight.—In August 2013, GAO issued a report 

on a variety of HUD self-sufficiency programs, including the ROSS 

program. The report recommended that HUD develop and implement a strategy to analyze ROSS participation and outcome data. 

HUD disagreed with the recommendation, citing various challenges 

to doing such analysis, including the variety of services that are 

funded through the program. The Committee agrees with GAO that 

analysis of program outcomes is critical to assessing the effectiveness of programs, and directs HUD to develop a strategy for collecting and analyzing such data in a way that is appropriate for 

the design of the program. The Committee directs HUD to report 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on how 

HUD is responding to GAO’s recommendations on oversight of the 

Family Self-Sufficiency program within 90 days of enactment of 

this act. This report should include a strategy for how it will improve its analysis of ROSS program outcomes. 

Jobs-Plus.—The Committee has included up to $15,000,000 to 

continue the Jobs-Plus Initiative. Like last year, the Secretary also 

has authority to set aside a portion of ROSS funding for the services component of this initiative. Jobs-Plus is based on a demonstration the Department began in 1998 that combined employment-related services and activities, financial incentives to work, 

and community support. The data showed that, on average, compared to other public housing residents, those in the program 

earned an additional $1,300 per year from 2000–2006. The Committee supports HUD’s efforts to assist public housing residents in 

finding employment and achieving greater economic self-sufficiency. 
116 

The Committee understands that HUD is working with other 

Federal and local partners to design a program that reflects 

changes in public housing since the time of the demonstration, and 

incorporates lessons learned from similar initiatives undertaken by 

housing authorities in recent years. The Committee encourages 

HUD to continue to collaborate with partners, but also expects that 

HUD will complete the program design this fall and be able to 

award funding to PHAs quickly in fiscal year 2015. 

Literacy Programs.—The Committee notes the importance of education and financial literacy in helping families improve life skills 

and increase their economic opportunities. An evaluation of the 

Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] Program conducted by HUD found 

that families that exited the program before graduation had less 

education than program graduates. Increasing educational and financial literacy services for public housing residents offers an opportunity to increase the success of participants in FSS and other 

employment programs. The Committee encourages HUD to work 

with national community-based literacy organizations to identify 

models that successfully incorporate adult literacy programs into 

HUD sponsored housing initiatives. Successful models should link 

these programs to job readiness and post secondary transition initiatives, which will help adults with low literacy skills become more 

financially literate and gain the skills necessary to make informed 

decisions about the use and management of money. HUD should 

develop and share best practices with PHAs and other housing providers to expand services to adult learners. 

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $4,400,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 4,600,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,475,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the payment of operating subsidies to approximately 3,100 public housing authorities (except Indian housing authorities) with a total of approximately 1.2 million 

units under management in order to augment rent payments by 

residents in order to provide sufficient revenues to meet reasonable 

operating costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,475,000,000 

for the public housing operating fund, which is $125,000,000 less 

than the budget request and $75,000,000 more than the fiscal year 

2014 enacted level. 

The Committee has included provisions providing PHAs with increased flexibility to move funds between their capital and operating funds, as well as giving them the ability to establish capital 

reserves. The Committee notes that many PHAs have taken steps 

to achieve operational savings by improving energy efficiency or 

otherwise reducing expenses. The Committee wants to reward such 

efforts by providing PHAs with the ability to reinvest such savings 

in their properties. 
117 

In addition to providing flexibility with its funding, the Committee also recognizes that PHAs face administrative and regulatory burdens. As part of the fiscal year 2014 appropriations bill, 

the Department was directed to report to the Committee on regulations that need to be updated and streamlined. While the Committee anticipates the report’s delivery later this year, it reiterates 

support for regulatory and administrative relief that result in cost 

savings, while still maintaining effective and meaningful oversight. 

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $90,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 120,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 90,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative provides competitive grants 

to transform impoverished neighborhoods into functioning, sustainable, mixed-income neighborhoods with co-location of appropriate 

services, schools, public assets, transportation options, and access 

to jobs or job training. The goal of the program is to demonstrate 

that concentrated and coordinated neighborhood investments from 

multiple sources can transform a distressed neighborhood and improve the quality of life of residents. 

Choice Neighborhoods grants fund the preservation, rehabilitation, and transformation of public and HUD-assisted housing as 

well as their neighborhoods. The program builds on the successes 

of public housing transformation under HOPE VI with a broader 

approach to concentrated poverty. Grantees include public housing 

authorities, tribes, local governments, and nonprofit organizations. 

For-profit developers may also apply in partnership with another 

eligible grantee. Grant funds can be used for resident and community services, community development and affordable housing activities in surrounding communities. Grantees undertake comprehensive local planning with input from residents and the community. A strong emphasis is placed on local community planning 

for school and educational improvements, including early childhood 

initiatives. 

The Department also places a strong emphasis on coordination 

with other Federal agencies, notably the Departments of Education, Labor, Transportation, Health and Human Services, and 

Justice, to leverage additional resources. Where possible, the program is coordinated with the Department of Education’s Promise 

Neighborhoods Initiative. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $90,000,000 for 

the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. This amount is equal to the 

fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $30,000,000 less than the budget 

request. Choice Neighborhoods seeks to build on the HOPE VI program by expanding the types of eligible grantees and allowing 

funding to be used on HUD-owned or assisted housing, as well as 

the surrounding community. However, the Committee notes that 

the work to replace distressed public housing is far from complete. 

Therefore, the Committee has included language that stipulates 
118 

that not less than $55,000,000 of the funding provided shall be 

awarded to projects where public housing authorities are the lead 

applicant. The Committee has also included the authority to recapture funding remaining from completed projects. As a result, there 

will be an estimated $5,300,000 in additional resources available 

for the program. 

Choice Neighborhoods is part of a broader Administration initiative, Promise Zones, which is focused on investing in designated 

high poverty neighborhoods. Under the proposal, HUD investments 

will be coordinated with resources from other agencies, such as the 

Departments of Education and Justice, and targeted to select 

neighborhoods to increase their impact. The Committee supports 

this initiative and its focus on distressed neighborhoods. At the 

same time, the goal of Choice Neighborhoods is to replace distressed housing as a way to improve communities and the lives of 

residents. Therefore, HUD should not limit applicants to a narrowly defined set of neighborhoods since it may prevent the replacement of eligible and worthy public or assisted housing projects 

that are outside such designated neighborhoods from competing for 

funding. 

Inherent in the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative is the understanding that community transformation requires more than replacing housing. The creation of vibrant, sustainable communities 

also requires greater access to transportation, jobs and services 

that will increase opportunities for community residents. However, 

HUD funding cannot support all of these activities. The Committee 

has been encouraged by the ability of Choice Neighborhood grantees to leverage significant resources with their grant awards. 

Grantees have leveraged over $2,000,000,000 in other public and 

private resources with the $231,000,000 in Choice Neighborhoods 

funding they have received to date. Grantees have begun replacing 

affordable housing and making other community improvements, 

and when projects are complete, needed affordable housing units 

will be created or preserved. 

The Committee continues to emphasize the importance of integrating services for residents into Choice Neighborhood projects, 

which will help to ensure that the goal of improving the lives of 

residents can be met. In addition, the Committee urges HUD to 

identify successful partnership strategies that can not only be utilized by future Choice Neighborhood grantees, but can also serve 

as models for traditional public housing and HUD-assisted housing 

program providers that want to improve services for their residents. 

FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $75,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 75,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 75,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] program provides funding to 

help Housing Choice Voucher, project-based section 8, and Public 

Housing residents achieve self-sufficiency and economic independence. The FSS program is designed to provide service coordination 
119 

through community partnerships that link residents with employment assistance, job training, child care, transportation, financial 

literacy, and other supportive services. The funding will be allocated through one competition to eligible Public Housing Authorities [PHAs] to support service coordinators who will serve both 

public housing and vouchers residents. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,000,000 for 

the Family Self-Sufficiency program in fiscal year 2015, an amount 

equal to both the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and the President’s 

request. 

The Committee strongly supports the FSS program, which helps 

provide public housing and section 8 residents with the tools to improve their lives and achieve self-sufficiency. The Committee also 

supports the idea of expanding FSS to residents receiving projectbased rental assistance. At the same time, the Committee recognizes that expanding the number of entities eligible for service coordinator funding without increasing the resources available for 

the program could jeopardize existing FSS programs. Therefore, 

the Committee is allowing PBRA residents to participate in the 

program and save increased earnings in an escrow account, but it 

is not allowing PBRA project owners to compete for service coordinator funding. The Committee is aware of organizations that may 

be willing to partner with project owners to provide or coordinate 

services for PBRA residents, and hopes that HUD will work to 

identify and facilitate such partnership opportunities. 

As HUD works to streamline and expand the program, the Committee also expects HUD to identify best practices in the field that 

are successfully improving outcomes for residents. The Committee 

encourages HUD to consider best practices for how to increase participation, improve alignment between eligible uses of funding and 

milestones, and incorporate financial education into the program 

design. 

FSS and Youth.—The Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] program provides participants with case management, as well as the ability to 

save increased earnings, so that residents can increase self-sufficiency. The Committee wants to test the effectiveness of pairing the 

FSS program with existing Family Unification Program [FUP] 

vouchers for youth. FUP vouchers are available to families in the 

child welfare system, including youth aging out of foster care that 

are at risk of homelessness. The vouchers provide homeless youth 

with the housing stability they need to improve their lives through 

education or job training; goals that align with those of the FSS 

program. 

Unfortunately, current program rules make the FUP and FSS 

programs incompatible; for example the programs have different 

time requirements. By providing the Secretary with the flexibility 

to modify the FUP program for youth, the Committee hopes that 

it will increase opportunities to offer youth the support they need 

to achieve self-sufficiency. The Committee permits all PHAs with 

both FUP and FSS programs to participate, so long as PHAs can 

demonstrate partnerships with public child welfare agencies, the 

capacity to serve youth, success with serving existing FSS partici-
120 

pants, and partnerships with other youth-serving organizations. 

The Secretary is directed to monitor the program and report on lessons learned from it. 

Program Data Collection and Analysis.—In August 2013, GAO 

released a report titled, Rental Housing Assistance: HUD Data on 

Self-Sufficiency Programs Should Be Improved. While the report 

noted positive outcomes identified with the FSS program, it also 

found that HUD lacked quality data with which to monitor and 

analyze the program. The Committee agrees with GAO’s recommendations that HUD needs to provide clear guidance to FSS 

grantees on what data should be reported, which HUD should monitor to ensure that it is accurate and complete. Accurate data are 

critical to evaluate the program’s effectiveness and recommend best 

practices to improve outcomes for participants. The Committee directs HUD to report on how it is satisfying the recommendations 

of GAO’s report within 90 days of enactment of this act. This report 

should include timelines for issuing guidance and the processes it 

will put in place to monitor data. 

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $650,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 650,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 650,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds the Native American Housing Block Grant 

Program, as authorized under title I of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 [NAHASDA]. 

This program provides a funding allocation on a formula basis to 

Indian tribes and their tribally designated housing entities to help 

address the housing needs within their communities. Under this 

block grant, Indian tribes use performance measures and benchmarks that are consistent with the national goals of the program, 

but can base these measures on the needs and priorities established in their own Indian housing plan. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $650,000,000 for 

the Native American Housing Block Grant Program, of which 

$2,000,000 is set aside for a credit subsidy to support a loan level 

not to exceed $16,530,000 for the Title VI Loan Guarantee Program. The recommended level of funding is equal to the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2014 and consistent with the budget request. 

The Native American Housing Block Grant Program is a vital resource for tribal governments to address the dire housing conditions in Indian Country. Access to affordable housing remains in a 

critical state for many tribes across the country. Native Americans 

are twice as likely to live in poverty compared to the rest of the 

Nation. As a result, the housing challenges on tribal lands are 

daunting. According to the U.S. Census American Community Survey for 2006–2010, 8.1 percent of homes on American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust land are overcrowded, compared 

to 3.1 percent of households nationwide. The number of households 
121 

on reservation lands with severe housing costs that spend more 

than 50 percent of their income on housing has risen 46 percent 

over the past decade. 

The subcommittee staff have conducted site visits to several 

tribes to better understand the challenges to developing and maintaining affordable housing in Indian Country. The conditions found 

there were disturbing and the magnitude of the need overwhelming. Many tribally designated housing entities lack access to 

financing and credit to develop new housing due to the difficulty 

of financing when trust lands are involved. Most development 

projects take 3 years or longer to complete due to a lack of financial 

resources, issues related to land and permitting approvals, and the 

lack of infrastructure in many of these sparse, remote locations. 

In 2012, the Committee directed GAO to conduct an analysis of 

these and other challenges associated with the development of affordable housing in Indian Country. GAO found that tribes face 

multiple internal and external challenges in carrying out affordable 

housing activities. Remote locations and a lack of basic infrastructure significantly increase the cost of development. Tribes also face 

challenges with differing environmental review requirements when 

scare resources are leveraged from a variety of Federal agencies. 

The Committee agrees with GAO that substantial efficiencies and 

cost-savings can be achieved to facilitate infrastructure development by creating a coordinated project environmental review process. Therefore, the Committee directs HUD to collaborate with the 

Council on Environmental Quality and affected Federal agencies, 

including the Department of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Treasury and the Environmental Protection Agency, to develop a coordinated environmental 

review process to simplify tribal housing development and its related infrastructure needs. The agencies shall conduct consultation 

with tribes and tribally designated housing entities and report 

their conclusions, recommendations and any statutory changes that 

may be necessary to facilitate this process to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations by May 1, 2015. 

Technical Assistance.—Limited capacity hinders the ability of 

many tribes to effectively address their housing needs. The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for technical assistance through a 

national organization representing Native American housing interests as authorized under NAHASDA (25 U.S.C. 4212), and up to 

$2,000,000 for inspections of Indian housing units, contract expertise, training, technical assistance, oversight, and management. 

The Committee expects HUD to use the technical assistance 

funding provided to a national tribal organization to aid tribes with 

capacity challenges, especially tribes receiving small grant awards. 

The funding should be used for training, contract expertise, and 

other services necessary to improve data collection, increase 

leveraging, and address other needs identified by tribes. The Committee expects that any assistance provided will reflect the unique 

needs and culture of Native Americans. 
122 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 13,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide 

grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home 

Lands for housing and housing-related assistance, in order to develop, maintain, and operate affordable housing for eligible low-income Native Hawaiian families. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000 for 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program, which is equal 

to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $3,000,000 less than the 

budget request. Of the amount provided, $300,000 may be for training and technical assistance activities, including up to $100,000 for 

related travel for Hawaii-based HUD employees. 

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Program account 

Limitation on 

guaranteed 

loans 

Appropriations, 2014 .......................................................................................................... $6,000,000 $1,818,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................................................... 8,000,000 1,200,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 6,000,000 714,290,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for Indian families, Indian tribes, and their tribally designated housing entities 

that otherwise could not acquire housing financing because of the 

unique status of Indian trust land. HUD continues to be the largest 

single source of financing for housing in tribal communities. This 

program makes it possible to promote sustainable reservation communities by providing access to financing for higher income Native 

Americans to achieve homeownership within their Native communities. As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this 

account includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees authorized under this program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,000,000 in 

program subsidies to support a loan level of $714,290,000. This 

subsidy amount is equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted subsidy 

level and $2,000,000 less than the budget request. 
123 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account 

Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2014 .......................................................................................................... $100,000 $16,130,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................................................... .......................... ..........................

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 100,000 16,130,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for Native Hawaiians who otherwise could not acquire housing finance because 

of the unique status of the Hawaiian Home Lands as trust land. 

As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account 

includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees authorized under this program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000 in program subsidies to support a loan level of $16,130,000 which is 

equal to the subsidy and loan levels provided in fiscal year 2014. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $330,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 332,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 330,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA] program provides States and localities with resources and incentives 

to devise long-term, comprehensive strategies for meeting the housing and supportive service needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS 

and their families. 

Since 1990, by statute, 90 percent of formula-appropriated funds 

are distributed to qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the 

basis of the number of AIDS cases and incidence of AIDS reported 

to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by March 31 of 

the year preceding the fiscal year. The remaining 10 percent of 

funds are awarded through a national competition, with priority 

given to the renewal of funding for expiring agreements consistent 

with appropriations act requirements. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $330,000,000 for 

the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA] program. This level of funding is $2,000,000 less than the President’s 

budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The 

Committee continues to include language requiring HUD to allocate these funds in a manner that preserves existing HOPWA pro-
124 

grams, to the extent that those programs are determined to be 

meeting the needs of persons with HIV/AIDS. 

Legislative Reauthorization Proposal.—The Committee recognizes 

that the HOPWA statute requires an update to the formula funding to target limited resources to communities most impacted by 

HIV. The proposal to expand short-term homeless prevention services could provide valuable flexibility to grantees to stabilize vulnerable, extremely low-income individuals and households. The 

Committee encourages HUD to engage with stakeholders on the 

benefits of a new reauthorization proposal that updates the program. HUD should work with the respective House and Senate authorization committees to enact these and other much needed reforms to the program. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $3,100,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 2,870,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,090,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award block 

grants to units of general local government and States for the funding of local community development programs. A wide range of 

physical, economic, and social development activities are eligible 

with spending priorities determined at the local level, but the law 

enumerates general objectives which the block grants are designed 

to fulfill, including adequate housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities, principally for persons 

of low and moderate income. Grant recipients are required to use 

at least 70 percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. 

Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective formulas, one 

of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age of housing 

stock. Of the funds appropriated, 70 percent are distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting designated amounts for setasides for insular areas and Indian CDBG. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,090,000,000 

for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2015. This 

level is $220,000,000 more than the budget request and 

$10,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

The Committee has provided $3,020,000,000 for Community Development Block Grants. The recommended amount is 

$220,000,000 more than the budget request and $10,000,000 less 

than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. CDBG funding provides 

States and entitlement communities with resources that allow 

them to undertake a wide range of community development activities, including public infrastructure improvements, housing rehabilitation and construction, job creation and retention, and public 

services that primarily benefit low and moderate income persons. 
125 

The flexibility associated with CDBG enables State and local governments to tailor solutions to effectively meet the unique needs of 

their communities. The investments made through CDBG help support infrastructure, small businesses, housing and services important to strong communities. The impact of these investments reverberates through communities, leveraging additional sources of 

funding and creating thousands of jobs. 

To ensure the program remains flexible, but also accountable and 

transparent, the Committee continues a provision in bill language 

first added in fiscal year 2014 that prohibits any community from 

selling its CDBG award to another community. In addition, the 

Committee has added a new requirement that any funding provided to a for-profit entity for an economic development project 

funded under this bill undergo appropriate underwriting. The Committee has included these provisions to address concerns raised 

about how program dollars have been used and mitigate risks associated with it. 

The Committee includes $70,000,000 for grants to Indian tribes 

for essential economic and community development activities which 

is equal to the budget request and the fiscal year 2014 enacted 

level. 

Mold Remediation and Prevention.—The Committee includes 

$10,000,000 to fund grants for mold remediation and prevention in 

Native American housing. This level is equal to the fiscal year 2014 

enacted level. The funding will be awarded to grantees through a 

single national competition to ensure that grants are awarded to 

tribes with greatest need. 

In administering this funding and working to address mold in 

Native American housing, the Committee expects the Office of Native American Programs to work with the Office of Lead Hazard 

Control and Healthy Homes to ensure Native American communities have the information and assistance they need to effectively 

address this serious issue. 

The Committee wants to monitor the success of these funds in 

addressing the mold problem. Therefore, the Committee directs 

HUD to report on the number of units remediated and any other 

pertinent information. This information should be provided to the 

Committee as part of annual congressional justifications or upon 

request. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Program account 

Limitation on 

guaranteed 

loans 

Appropriations, 2014 .......................................................................................................... $3,000,000 $150,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................................................... .......................... 500,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal loan 

guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and nonentitlement communities to cover the costs of acquiring real prop-
126 

erty, rehabilitation of publicly owned real property, housing rehabilitation, and other economic development activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes the President’s proposal to make this a fee-based program, and provides no appropriation. However, the fee-based structure recommended by the Committee will support a loan level guarantee of $500,000,000 for the 

section 108 loan guarantees account for fiscal year 2015. This guaranteed loan level is $350,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 

level and equal to the President’s request. 

This program enables CDBG recipients to use their CDBG dollars to leverage financing for economic development projects, community facilities, and housing rehabilitation programs. Communities are allowed to borrow up to five times their most recent 

CDBG allocation. 

For several years, the administration has been proposing to 

make this a fee-based program. In fiscal year 2014, the Committee 

accepted this proposal, but since HUD had not begun the rulemaking process, it provided both a subsidy and the authority to 

raise fees so that HUD could transition the program to the new 

funding structure without disrupting it. The Committee expected 

HUD to move quickly to commence the rulemaking process and 

clearly communicate program costs and requirements to communities, yet more than halfway through the fiscal year, the rulemaking process has not begun and communities are left wondering 

how the program will operate. The Committee expects HUD to ensure that a financing structure is in place by the beginning of the 

fiscal year to ensure that this important program remains available 

to communities. In addition, HUD must provide communities with 

information and any technical assistance they may need to successfully utilize the program. 

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $1,000,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 950,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 950,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This program provides assistance to States and local governments for the 

purpose of expanding the supply and affordability of housing to 

low-income and very low-income people. Eligible activities include 

tenant-based rental assistance, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing, and housing construction. 

To participate in the HOME program, State and local governments 

must develop a comprehensive housing affordability strategy. There 

is a 25 percent matching requirement for participating jurisdictions, which can be reduced or eliminated if they are experiencing 

fiscal distress. 
127 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $950,000,000 for 

the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This amount is 

$50,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The 

amount is the same as the budget request, but the budget also proposes to fund a $10,000,000 Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership 

Program [SHOP] program out of this account, which the Committee has rejected. 

The bill includes several provisions to improve the program that 

were requested in the budget, including allowing statewide nonprofits to be designated as Community Housing Development Organizations. This is expected to help States that are less populous, 

and as a result, have more organizations that serve the entire 

State. The Committee recommendation also includes a provision 

that will create an exception to the 30-day eviction notice in instances where a tenant poses a threat. Similar exceptions are included in other housing assistance programs. 

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $50,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 1 ......................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 50,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program is comprised of the Self-Help Homeownership Program 

[SHOP], which assists low-income homebuyers willing to contribute 

‘‘sweat equity’’ toward the construction of their houses. These funds 

increase nonprofit organizations’ ability to leverage funds from 

other sources. This account also includes funding for the Capacity 

Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing Program, as well as assistance to rural communities as authorized 

under sections 6301 through 6305 of Public Law 110–246. These 

programs help to develop the capacity of nonprofit community development organizations to carry out community development and 

affordable housing projects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Self-Help and 

Assisted Homeownership Program, which is equal to the fiscal year 

2014 enacted level. The budget request would shift a portion of the 

funding for these activities to the HOME program, and transition 

the section 4 program into a new Capacity Building program. The 

Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for SHOP, as authorized under section 11 of the Housing Opportunity Extension 

Act of 1996; $35,000,000 for capacity building as authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993; and $5,000,000 to 

carry out capacity building activities in rural communities. The 

Committee notes that funding for technical assistance is being provided under the Transformation Initiative and directs funds available for section 4 to be used solely for capacity building activities. 
128 

Energy Star.—The Committee is concerned that the Energy Star 

requirements in the SHOP Notice of Funding Availability [NOFA] 

while well-intentioned may increase costs in a time that limited resources should be targeted to producing homes that comply with 

local building and safety codes. The Department is directed to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 120 days of enactment of this act that evaluates: (1) 

if the Energy Star requirement in this program’s NOFA are consistent with Energy Star requirements across HUD programs; and 

(2) if this requirement is a barrier to participation, especially in 

rural areas, considering factors such as the cost of certifications, 

access to Home Energy Raters or certified HVAC contractors, or 

the mortgage now exceeding USDA’s Area Loan Limits. 

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $2,105,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 2,406,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,145,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Homeless Assistance Grants Program provides funding to 

break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons and 

families to permanent housing. This is done by providing rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and permanent housing, 

prevention, rapid re-housing, and supportive services to homeless 

persons and families or those at risk of homelessness. The emergency solutions grant program is a formula grant program, while 

the Continuum of Care and Rural Housing Stability Programs are 

competitive grants. Homeless assistance grants provide Federal 

support to one of the Nation’s most vulnerable populations. These 

grants assist localities in addressing the housing and service needs 

of a wide variety of homeless populations while developing coordinated Continuum of Care [CoC] systems that ensure the support 

necessary to help those who are homeless to attain housing and 

move toward self-sufficiency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,145,000,000 

for Homeless Assistance Grants in fiscal year 2015. This amount 

is $261,400,000 less than the President’s request, and $40,000,000 

more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

As part of the Committee recommendation, at least $1,848,000,000 will support the Continuum of Care Program, including the renewal of existing projects, and the Rural Housing 

Stability Assistance Program. Based on the renewal burden, HUD 

may also support planning and other activities authorized by the 

HEARTH Act. The recommendation also includes at least 

$250,000,000 for the emergency solutions grants program [ESG]. 

Given the current fiscal constraints, the Committee is not able 

to provide the funding requested for new permanent supportive 

housing. However, the Committee remains committed to supporting 

the goals outlined in the Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and 

End Homelessness, including the goal to end chronic homelessness. 

The Committee supports HUD’s efforts to leverage existing housing 
129 

resources, such as section 8 vouchers, to serve the homeless. The 

Committee also supports replacing existing, underperforming 

projects with new permanent supportive housing projects. Therefore, if funds remain available in this account after meeting renewal demands and funding ESG, HUD may use it for new 

projects, provided that such projects are targeted to areas with the 

greatest need, as measured by homeless data. 

Youth Homelessness.—The Committee is concerned about the 

number of youth experiencing homelessness. HUD has provided 

guidance to communities about how to better count homeless youth 

as part of the point-in-time count, and stressed the importance of 

serving youth as part of the annual Continuum of Care competition. There is still more to be done. The Committee expects HUD 

to ensure that communities have youth-appropriate housing, 

through technical assistance and dissemination of best practices. In 

addition, HUD should do more to emphasize the importance of 

youth-appropriate housing as part of the annual Continuum of 

Care competition. 

Housing for Domestic Violence Survivors.—The Committee knows 

that many individuals experiencing homelessness are also survivors of domestic violence. Ensuring that they have a safe place 

to live is a critical role of the homeless system. The Committee is 

aware that as continuums eliminate or replace underperforming 

homeless projects, housing serving those impacted by domestic violence may be lost. The Committee supports the efforts of communities to ensure homeless projects being funded demonstrate positive housing outcomes for those they serve. At the same time, it is 

critical to ensure that the unique housing needs of survivors of domestic violence are met. The Committee urges HUD to work with 

communities to help ensure they have appropriate housing available for domestic violence survivors. This may include replacing an 

underperforming project specific to survivors of domestic violence 

with a project that serves the same purpose, but with better results. 

Annual Homeless Assessment Report.—AHAR stems from congressional directives begun in 2001 that charged the Department 

with collecting homeless data through the implementation of a new 

Homeless Management Information System [HMIS]. AHAR includes HMIS data, information provided by Continuums of Care, 

and a count of sheltered and unsheltered persons from one night 

in January of each year. The Committee is encouraged that Federal 

agencies are sharing homeless data and working towards using 

HMIS as a platform for gathering information in other Federal programs. Having consistent national data will allow the Federal Government to better understand the needs of the homeless and better 

align Federal services to meet these needs. To support continued 

data collection and AHAR, the Committee has included $7,000,000 

for data analysis and technical assistance. 

The Committee requests that HUD submit the AHAR report by 

August 29, 2015. The Committee further hopes that HUD’s efforts 

to increase participation in the HMIS effort will lead to improved 

information about and understanding of the Nation’s homeless. 

Renewal Costs.—The Committee directs HUD to continue to include 5-year projections of the costs of renewing existing projects 
130 

as part of the fiscal year 2016 budget justification. This should include estimated costs of renewing permanent supportive housing. 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2014 1 ........................................................................... $9,916,628,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 1 ......................................................................... 9,746,000,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 9,746,000,000 

1 Includes an advance appropriation. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Section 8 project-based rental assistance provides a rental subsidy to a private landlord that is tied to a specific housing unit, as 

opposed to a voucher, which allows a recipient to seek a unit, subject primarily to certain rent caps. Amounts in this account include 

funding for the renewal of and amendments to expiring section 8 

project-based contracts, including section 8, moderate rehabilitation, and single room occupancy [SRO] housing. This account also 

provides funds for contract administrators. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The section 8 project-based rental assistance [PBRA] program 

supports an estimated 17,400 contracts with private owners of multifamily housing. Through this program, HUD and private sector 

partners support the preservation of safe, stable and sanitary housing for more than 1.2 million low-income Americans. Without 

PBRA, many affordable housing projects would convert to market 

rates with large rent increases that current tenants would be unable to afford. 

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 

$9,746,000,000 for the annual renewal of project-based contracts, of 

which up to $210,000,000 is for the cost of contract administrators. 

The recommended level of funding is $170,628,000 less than the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2014 and is equal to the budget request. 

The Committee reluctantly concurs with the administration’s 

proposal to shift the payment of contracts to a calendar year basis. 

This funding cycle is consistent with the practices for the tenantbased rental assistance and public housing programs. However, it 

is a departure from the long-standing practice that all projectbased contracts should receive a full 12 months of financing from 

the contract renewal date to maintain investor confidence and support for the program. The Committee recognizes that this strategy 

temporarily defers the need for large budgetary increases to fiscal 

year 2016. Unfortunately, due to the budget constraints for fiscal 

year 2015, the Committee accepts this approach as the best option 

for preserving HUD’s housing assistance programs. While the Office of Multifamily Housing is implementing many cost-savings 

measures, the revenue that such steps are expected to generate in 

the next fiscal year will be minimal compared to PBRA’s funding 

requirements. The Committee urges the Department to explore 

other opportunities to reduce program costs, while encouraging the 
131 

Department to manage the funding provided to ensure an uninterrupted flow of funds to support this critical housing resource. 

Performance-Based Contract Administrators.—Performance-based 

contract administrators [PBCAs] are typically public housing authorities or State housing finance agencies. They are responsible 

for conducting on-site management reviews of assisted properties; 

adjusting contract rents; and reviewing, processing, and paying 

monthly vouchers submitted by owners. The Committee notes that 

PBCAs are integral to the Department’s efforts to be more effective 

and efficient in the oversight and monitoring of this program. The 

Committee is also aware of ongoing litigation that will affect the 

future of these entities and will continue to monitor developments. 

The Committee believes that fair and open competition is the best 

way to ensure that the taxpayer receives the greatest benefit for 

the costs incurred. The Department is directed to ensure that the 

PBCA selection process be, to the greatest extent legally permissible, full, open, and fair. 

Oversight of Property Owners.—The Committee places a priority 

on providing access to safe, sanitary, and affordable housing to 

those most in need. If owners fail to maintain their properties in 

accordance with HUD standards, they should be held accountable. 

While there is a tension between holding property owners responsible and ensuring tenants don’t lose their housing, HUD has tools 

at its disposal to hold owners accountable without putting tenants 

at risk. 

HUD has recently taken important steps to increase its oversight 

of multifamily properties. It launched the Sustaining Our Investments Initiative, which is designed to ensure consistent guidance 

to all project owners and to provide clarity on how non-compliance 

will be addressed. To date, HUD has completed a risk rating assessment for all PBRA properties and is assigning Project Managers to address performance problems at troubled assets. HUD 

also uses inspections by the Real Estate Assessment Center 

[REAC] to identify physical and financial issues. Properties with 

physical inspection scores below 30 are referred to the Departmental Enforcement Center [DEC] for further intervention. DEC 

may pursue civil penalties or other enforcement measures. Since 

fiscal year 2009, there has been a 15 percent decrease in the number of properties receiving REAC scores lower than 30. This indicates that HUD’s oversight initiatives are reducing the number of 

troubled properties in this important affordable housing program. 

To ensure continued attention to this issue, the Committee recommendation includes a general provision that requires HUD to 

take specific steps to ensure that physical deficiencies in properties 

are quickly addressed, and requires the Secretary to take explicit 

actions if the owner fails to maintain them. These actions include 

imposing civil money penalties, working to secure a different owner 

for the property, or transferring the section 8 contract to another 

the property. The Committee wants to preserve critical projectbased 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 
132 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the number of projects that receive multiple exigent health and safety violations or physical inspection scores below 30. HUD shall also identify the actions taken to address safety concerns, including the frequency with which civil money penalties are imposed, contracts are 

transferred to another property, or ownership is transferred. The 

Committee expects that with increased enforcement the number of 

troubled properties will continue to be reduced. 

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $383,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 440,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 420,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds housing for the elderly under section 202 of 

the Housing Act of 1959. Under this program, the Department provides capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing for seniors, and provides projectbased rental assistance contracts [PRAC] to support operational 

costs for such units. Tenants living in section 202 supportive housing units can access a variety of community-based services to keep 

living independently in the community and age in place. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The section 202 program provides nearly 400,000 federally assisted, privately owned affordable housing units for the elderly. The 

Committee recommends an appropriation of $420,000,000 for the 

section 202 program. This level is $36,500,000 more than the level 

provided in fiscal year 2014 and $20,000,000 less than the budget 

request. The Committee recommendation includes $350,000,000 to 

fully fund all annual project-rental assistance contract renewals 

and amendments, and $70,000,000 for service coordinators and the 

continuation of existing congregate service grants. Due to very 

tight budget constraints, no funds are provided to supplement the 

fiscal year 2014 investment in an elderly project rental assistance 

demonstration. The combination of resources from fiscal year 2014 

appropriations, residual receipts, collections, and other unobligated 

balances are sufficient to administer a long-term demonstration of 

how housing plus supportive services can delay the need for more 

costly assisted living or nursing home care. 

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $126,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 160,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 135,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for housing for the persons with 

disabilities under section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzales National 

Affordable Housing Act of 1990. Traditionally, the section 811 program provided capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition, 

rehabilitation, or construction of housing for persons with disabilities, as well as rental assistance to support operational costs. 
133 

Since fiscal year 2012, HUD has transitioned to expanding capacity 

by providing project rental assistance to State housing financing 

agencies or other appropriate entities that act in partnership with 

State health and human service agencies to provide supportive 

services as authorized by the Frank Melville Supportive Housing 

Investment Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–374). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $135,000,000 for the section 811 program. This level is $25,000,000 less than the 

budget request and is $9,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 

enacted level. This level of funding supports all PRAC renewals 

and amendments. Should HUD identify any residual receipts, or 

recaptures of other unobligated balances in the account, the Secretary shall direct such resources to supplement the recent demonstration competition for project rental assistance to State housing finance agencies. 

HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $45,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 60,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 49,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Counseling Assistance Program provides comprehensive housing counseling services to eligible homeowners and 

tenants through grants to nonprofit intermediaries, State government entities, and other local and national agencies. Eligible counseling activities include pre- and post-purchase education, personal 

financial management, reverse mortgage product education, foreclosure prevention, mitigation, and rental counseling. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $49,000,000 for the Housing Counseling Assistance program, which is $11,000,000 

less than the budget request and $4,000,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2014 enacted level. The funds provided will help individuals 

and families across the country make better-informed housing decisions. Specifically, it will support additional competitive counseling 

grants and training activities. In addition, the administrative contract support funding includes increased resources for financial audits and technical assistance, as well as support for the Homeowners Armed With Knowledge program. 

The Committee has included language requiring HUD to obligate 

counseling grants within 180 days of enactment of this act. The 

Committee has extended the award deadline from 120 to 180 days 

to provide sufficient time for counseling agencies to respond to 

HUD’s funding notice, while also ensuring grantees receive funding 

in a timely manner. The bill also includes language permitting 

HUD to publish multiyear NOFAs, contingent on annual appropriations, which should result in administrative savings for HUD 

and grantees. Other HUD programs, such as the Fair Housing Initiatives Program and Housing for the Elderly, have similar 

multiyear authority. 
134 

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $21,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 28,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides amendment funding for housing assisted 

under a variety of HUD housing programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,000,000 for 

HUD-assisted, State-aided, noninsured rental housing projects, 

consistent with the budget request. This amount is $7,000,000 

more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and equal to the budget request. The Committee notes that language is included in the 

bill that will allow the conversion of these projects to section 8, at 

no additional cost. The Committee hopes that the conversion of 

these projects, through the Rental Assistance Demonstration, will 

lead to the eventual elimination of these outdated programs. 

PAYMENT TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $7,530,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 

Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 

Improvement Act of 2000, authorizes the Secretary to establish 

Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 

the construction, design, and performance of manufactured homes. 

All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs of administering the act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support the manufactured housing standards programs, of which the full amount of 

$10,000,000 is expected to be derived from fees collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund account. No direct appropriation is provided. The total amount recommended is 

equal to the budget request and $2,470,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2014 enacted level. 

The Committee continues language allowing the Department to 

collect fees from program participants for the dispute resolution 

and installment programs mandated by the Manufactured Housing 

Improvement Act of 2000. These fees are to be deposited into the 

Trust Fund and may be used to support the manufactured housing 

standards programs subject to the overall cap placed on the account. The Committee expects the Department to move forward 

with this authority. 

The Committee notes that carryover in the program, along with 

HUD’s proposed rule to raise label fees, will allow HUD to continue 
135 

its current activities. However, the Committee recognizes that 

manufactured housing production has declined substantially since 

peak industry production in 1998, and continues to decline due to 

a variety of factors. Expenditures supporting the programs should 

reflect and correspond with this decline, which has specifically reduced the number of inspections and inspection hours required for 

new units. 

It is the Committee’s understanding that HUD is defining some 

recreational vehicles [RVs] as ‘‘manufactured homes.’’ RVs play an 

important role in providing transportation and temporary living 

quarters for travel, recreation and camping. The RV industry supports more than 12,000 businesses with combined annual revenues 

of more than $37,500,000,000. The Committee is concerned that advances in RV technology may require HUD to update its definition 

of what constitutes a recreational vehicle. The Committee encourages HUD to review its definition of what constitutes a recreational 

vehicle and consider updating the definition through an open, 

transparent and inclusive process. Manufactured housing plays an 

important role in providing housing to low- and moderate-income 

families. The Committee believes that any RV definition update 

should be construed in such a way that it does not negatively impact the manufactured housing industry. 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation on direct loans Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Administrative contract expenses 

Appropriations, 2014 ......................................................... $20,000,000 $400,000,000,000 $127,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ...................................................... 20,000,000 400,000,000,000 170,000,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................. 20,000,000 400,000,000,000 145,000,000 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation on direct loans Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................................... $20,000,000 $30,000,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................................... 20,000,000 30,000,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................................... 20,000,000 30,000,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the 

mortgage and loan insurance activity of HUD mortgage/loan insurance programs. These include the mutual mortgage insurance 

[MMI] fund, cooperative management housing insurance [CMHI] 

fund, general insurance [GI] fund, and the special risk insurance 

[SRI] fund. For presentation and accounting control purposes, these 

are divided into two sets of accounts based on shared characteristics. The unsubsidized insurance programs of the mutual mortgage 

insurance fund and the cooperative management housing insurance 

fund constitute one set; and the general risk insurance and special 

risk insurance funds make up the other. 
136 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has included the following amounts for the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program account: a limitation on guaranteed loans of $400,000,000,000, a limitation on direct loans of 

$20,000,000, and $145,000,000 for administrative contract expenses. 

For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends 

$30,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans and a limitation on direct loans of $20,000,000. 

The bill also includes a rescission of $10,000,000 previously provided to support programs with positive credit subsidies; those programs are no longer issuing new commitments, so the funding is 

not needed. 

Following the housing crisis, FHA’s role in the housing market 

expanded considerably, as it played the countercyclical role for 

which it was designed. While FHA played a critical role in ensuring 

a functioning housing finance market during the crisis, its expanded role came with additional risk. As a result of its increased 

role in the market, as well as poor quality loans in its portfolio that 

were insured under laxer requirements, FHA suffered significant 

losses. This ultimately resulted in FHA seeking $1,700,000,000 

from Treasury at the end of fiscal year 2013 to cover expected 

losses—the first time FHA needed to draw on taxpayer funding in 

its history. 

Beginning in 2009, this administration implemented policies to 

tighten lending standards and increase premiums. These changes 

have improved the quality of its loans and increased the solvency 

of the MMI Fund. As a result of the increased fees and improvements in its loss mitigation strategies, the MMI Fund is not expected to require any additional funding from Treasury, and it is 

projected to reach the 2 percent capital requirement in 2016, a year 

earlier than projected in the 2012 actuarial review. While the Committee is pleased that the condition of the fund is improving, it expects HUD to remain focused on the fund’s financial health. 

Administrative Fee.—The Committee has provided the authority 

for HUD to charge a fee, as requested, to help offset FHA’s administrative costs, for which the Committee has provided $145,000,000. 

The increased resources will allow HUD to enhance its oversight 

and further mitigate risk to the MMI Fund. Of the amount provided, the Committee has included $8,000,000, as requested, for 

improvements to risk modeling and analytics. In addition, funding 

is included to increase quality control reviews, consistent with recommendations from HUD’s Office of Inspector General. Since the 

level recommended is lower than the request, the Committee directs HUD to submit a detailed plan for how it will allocate the 

funding provided within 30 days of enactment of this act. 

The Committee supports the goal of improving FHA’s quality 

control efforts and has included resources to do so; however, it also 

recognizes that FHA needs to provide clear and consistent guidance 

to lenders so that they can better assess risk associated with the 

mortgages they originate. In May, HUD issued a ‘‘Blueprint for Access’’, which includes several steps intended to provide industry 

with additional clarity, as well as target completion dates for each 
137 

item. The Committee stresses the importance of meeting the stated 

deadlines and working with industry to ensure that its guidance 

and oversight are fair and transparent. 

HAWK.—The President’s budget included a new initiative called 

Homeowners Armed With Knowledge [HAWK]. The goal of the program is to increase access to credit for borrowers, especially firsttime homeowners, who are currently locked out of the market due 

to tight lending standards. By providing incentives for homebuyers 

to obtain housing counseling, which has a track record of reducing 

the risk of default, FHA expects lenders will be more willing to 

make loans to these borrowers. In May, HUD announced further 

details of the proposal and asked for public comments on how the 

program and its incentives should be structured. The Committee is 

hopeful that HAWK can provide a way to responsibly expand 

homeownership opportunities. While the Committee supports the 

initiative, a separate appropriation is not included for it. Instead, 

HUD should use existing resources to implement the program. 

HECM.—During the fiscal year 2014 budget process, problems 

with the design of the HECM program were cited as a significant 

source of losses to the MMI Fund. In response to concerns about 

the program’s cost, Congress passed the Reverse Mortgage Stabilization Act of 2013. With the authority provided in the law, 

HUD has moved to improve the program by requiring borrowers 

taking high draws to use those funds to pay off debt obligations 

and requiring a financial assessment of all HECM mortgagors before the loan closes. The Committee expects that these changes will 

help ensure that the program remains available for seniors, while 

reducing the risks associated with it. 

Eminent Domain.—The Committee is aware of several local governments exploring the idea of partnering with private investors 

and using eminent domain authority to take title to certain mortgages—not the underlying real property—and pay the mortgage 

holders ‘‘fair market value.’’ The Government and investors would 

then write down the loan principal so that distressed homeowners 

could lower their monthly payments and begin to rebuild equity in 

their homes. With the principal reduced the borrower would likely 

then be able to refinance into an FHA loan, which could then be 

securitized by Government National Mortgage Association. Although this concept is still in its infancy and no jurisdiction has yet 

implemented such a proposal, the Committee will continue to monitor developments in this area, and expects FHA to keep the Committee informed of any policies it will propose if such a program 

is implemented. 

REO Properties.—The Committee directs the Department to submit a report within 180 days of enactment of this act to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the costs and timeframes involved when the Secretary takes title to real property following a foreclosure. This report should identify actions that the 

FHA is taking to reduce such costs or timeframes, and how the 

availability of title insurance coverage for satisfied liens which are 

not released in the public record would affect those costs and timeframes. 

Multifamily Housing.—The Committee notes that in April 2013, 

HUD began the Multifamily Housing Transformation Initiative. In 
138 

addition to modifying its field structure, the initiative focuses on 

process improvements by expanding its ‘‘Breaking Ground’’ and 

‘‘Sustaining our Investments’’ initiatives to all offices. These programs are designed to streamline the application process and quantify portfolio risk, which should improve efficiency and allow HUD 

to better target its resources on risky assets. The Committee understands that implementing significant staffing and process 

changes may impact program delivery, as staff adjust to new roles 

and a new way of doing their work. HUD must minimize any disruptions in processing and oversight of loans by clearly communicating to both staff and industry the changes that will occur and 

adjustments that will be necessary as a result of them. 

GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Limitation on 

personnel, 

compensation and 

administrative 

expenses 

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................................... $500,000,000,000 $19,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................................... 500,000,000,000 28,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................................... 500,000,000,000 24,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Government National Mortgage Association [Ginnie Mae], 

through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees privately issued securities backed by pools of Government-guaranteed 

mortgages. Ginnie Mae is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United States within the Department. Its powers are 

prescribed generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as 

amended. Ginnie Mae is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to 

guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that are based on and backed by a trust, or pool, composed of 

mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the FHA, the Rural 

Housing Service, or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ginnie 

Mae’s guarantee of mortgage-backed securities is backed by the full 

faith and credit of the United States. This account also funds all 

salaries and benefits funding to support Ginnie Mae. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments 

on mortgage-backed securities of $500,000,000,000. This level is the 

same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

The bill allows Ginnie Mae to use $24,000,000 for salaries and expenses. This is $4,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted 

level and $4,000,000 less than the President’s request. 

Since the near collapse of the private mortgage market, homeowners have relied on Federal programs, such as FHA, to purchase 

or refinance homes. Given that Ginnie Mae serves as a secondary 

market for FHA, its market share has also grown. For Ginnie Mae, 

a more important barometer of its workload than volume is the 

number of issuers participating in the program, which has in-
139 

creased by 30 percent since 2008. While all new issuers require 

scrutiny, even more staff time is required for non-depository entities, such as private equity and hedge fund participants, which are 

increasing in number. To respond to the greater workload and risk 

associated with the growing number of issuers, the Committee has 

increased funding for Ginnie Mae salaries and expenses. The recommended level of funding will support additional FTE in the Office of Issuer and Portfolio Management and the Office of Enterprise Data and Technology. These resources will increase Ginnie 

Mae’s capacity to effectively oversee its issuers, including the more 

complex non-depository ones. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $46,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 50,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 46,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as 

amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development to undertake programs of research, evaluation, 

and reports relating to the Department’s mission and programs. 

These functions are carried out internally and through grants and 

contracts with industry, nonprofit research organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements with State and local 

governments and other Federal agencies. The research programs 

seek ways to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of 

HUD programs and to identify methods to achieve cost reductions. 

Additionally, this appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation 

and monitoring activities and to conduct housing surveys. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $46,000,000 for 

research, technology, and community development activities in fiscal year 2015. This level is equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted 

level and $4,000,000 less than the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation will continue to support market 

surveys, such as the American Housing Survey, that are integral 

to HUD’s ability to understand its own programs and also help enhance public and private entities’ knowledge of housing conditions 

in the U.S. 

The Committee also continues language that allows HUD to 

enter into cooperative agreements, which allows the Office of Policy 

Development and Research to partner with other Federal agencies, 

researchers, or foundations on research that will inform HUD’s understanding of its programs and the people who rely on them. This 

structure reduces duplicative research by leveraging existing 

projects to meet the needs of different stakeholders. The Committee 

encourages HUD to continue to maximize this authority. 
140 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2014 1 ........................................................................... $66,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 71,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 66,000,000 1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding for 

both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the Fair 

Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP]. 

The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local 

agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as 

amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage services. The 

major objective of the program is to assure prompt and effective 

processing of title VIII complaints with appropriate remedies for 

complaints by State and local fair housing agencies. 

The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by section 

561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, as 

amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair housing opportunities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $66,000,000 for 

the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity [OFHEO]. This 

amount is $5,000,000 less than the budget request and equal to the 

2014 enacted level. Of the amounts provided, $23,300,000 is for 

FHAP; $1,800,000 is for the National Fair Housing Training Academy; and $40,600,000 is for FHIP. The bill also includes $300,000 

for the creation, promotion, and dissemination of translated materials that support the assistance of persons with limited English 

proficiency. 

The Committee supports the efforts of HUD and its local partners to prevent and combat housing discrimination. It is clear from 

HUD’s fiscal year 2010 Annual Report on Fair Housing that Americans continue to experience housing discrimination, most often 

based on disability and race. The funding provided through the 

FHAP and FHIP programs helps HUD and local agencies investigate and work to resolve potential fair housing violations. 

Of the recommended amount, at least $29,775,000 is provided to 

maintain the current level of private enforcement initiative grants. 

The level of funding provided for FHAP is consistent with the 

President’s budget and reflects a reduction in compliant processing 

due to fewer FHAP grantees, as well as the elimination of funding 

for the Biennial Policy Conference. 

Section 3 Compliance.—The Committee supports HUD’s effort to 

ensure that recipients of HUD funding are fulfilling their obligations under section 3 of the 1968 Housing Act to provide training, 

contract, and employment opportunities to low- and moderate-in-
141 

come people living in the area. The Committee is aware that some 

HUD grantees are finding it difficult to quickly resolve compliance 

issues, despite the fact that the core requirements of section 3 are 

being met. The Committee is also concerned that OFHEO does not 

have clearly stated guidance on all issues of noncompliance with 

section 3, and as a result, how to resolve such findings. In resolving 

issues of noncompliance with grantees, specifically grantees that 

meet numeric goals requirements, the Committee expects the Department to consider resolutions that will achieve the national objective, and are consistent with section 3 objectives. 

Housing for Individuals with Disabilities.—The Committee is 

concerned about the lack of accessible housing options available for 

individuals with physical disabilities. This issue affects both low income individuals with disabilities who want to live in the community with their peers rather than in congregate housing, and middle class individuals with disabilities who wish to either rent or 

purchase a home. The Committee directs HUD to work with the 

United States Access Board and interested disability advocates to 

consider financial, regulatory, and legislative options to help ensure 

that individuals with disabilities have a fair opportunity to rent or 

own accessible housing in their communities. HUD, in consultation 

with the Access Board, shall report to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations on recommended options or areas for further study within 180 days of enactment of this act. 

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL AND HEALTHY HOMES

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $110,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 120,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 

established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction 

Act, under which HUD is authorized to make grants to States, localities, and Native American tribes to conduct lead-based paint 

hazard reduction and abatement activities in private, low-income 

housing. Lead poisoning is a significant environmental health hazard, particularly for young children and pregnant women, and can 

result in neurological damage, learning disabilities, and impaired 

growth. The Healthy Homes Program, authorized under sections 

501 and 502 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 

(12 U.S.C. 1701z–1 and 1701z–2), provides grants to remediate 

housing hazards that have been scientifically shown to negatively 

impact occupant health and safety. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $110,000,000 for 

lead-based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2015, of which $15,000,000 is for the Healthy Homes Initiative. Of this amount, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $45,000,000 for the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, which 

was established in fiscal year 2003 to focus on major urban areas 

where children are disproportionately at risk for lead poisoning. 
142 

This amount is $10,000,000 less than the President’s budget request and equal to the amount available in fiscal year 2014. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $250,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 272,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 250,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Information Technology Fund finances the information technology [IT] systems that support departmental programs and operations, including FHA Mortgage Insurance, housing assistance and 

grant programs, as well as core financial and general operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $250,000,000 for 

the Information Technology Fund for fiscal year 2015, which is 

$22,000,000 less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal 

year 2014 enacted level. 

The Committee has been very supportive of HUD’s efforts to 

modernize its IT systems, which are critical to effectively overseeing its programs. For years, HUD has been hampered by outdated IT systems that aren’t integrated, which limit its ability to 

manage and oversee grantees. In addition, HUD’s efforts to work 

around system limitations to collect information for oversight purposes often results in increased work for grantees who have to 

input information into multiple systems. The Committee recognizes 

HUD’s effort to better integrate systems, but there is still more 

work to be done, and IT system integration should remain a top 

priority for the Department. 

The Committee recognizes that development of more sophisticated systems may come with higher costs associated with the additional capabilities HUD is getting. At the same time, HUD must 

also achieve savings by eliminating legacy systems and old servers. 

The Committee directs HUD to be more diligent in identifying and 

achieving savings by retiring old systems and shutting off redundant and inefficient servers. To that end, the Committee directs 

HUD to submit a plan within 120 days of enactment of this act 

that identifies savings it will achieve by retiring legacy systems 

and shutting off old servers. This should include target dates for 

taking such actions and expected savings from doing so. In addition, the Committee urges HUD to continue to look for savings 

when it renews contracts to reduce the ongoing costs of operating 

and maintaining its IT systems. 

The Committee is also concerned about the development of IT 

systems outside of the Information Technology Fund. The Committee understands that limited resources may prompt HUD offices 

to develop solutions with their own resources. The Committee expects that, at a minimum, OCIO will monitor and oversee the development of any such solutions. Of particular concern is the Real 

Estate Assessment Center, which continuously develops new ‘‘tools’’ 

with limited, if any, coordination with the OCIO. If systems continue to be developed outside of the normal process, integration 

with larger systems will likely be more difficult and costly in the 
143 

future. The Committee directs the OCIO to monitor the development of new system solutions by every office in HUD to make sure 

they conform to HUD’s enterprise architecture, and will be compatible with systems under development. 

GAO Oversight.—Since 2010, the Committee has required HUD 

to submit an expenditure plan outlining its IT modernization 

projects before it could spend a portion of its IT funding. The plans 

were reviewed by GAO to determine if they satisfied the statutory 

requirements. Based on reports and briefings from GAO over the 

past few years, the Committee recognizes the progress HUD has 

made in its IT modernization planning efforts, and the focus must 

now be on its implementation of the plans and execution of the 

projects. Therefore, the Committee has modified the contents of the 

plan HUD is required to submit to the Committee and GAO to provide: (1) details regarding HUD’s portfolio of IT investments; and 

(2) the status of the Department’s efforts in applying IT management controls. This plan may also include additional information 

regarding the extent to which IT management controls have been 

applied to the projects associated with each IT investment in the 

Department’s portfolio. The Committee emphasizes the importance 

of pursuing a strategic approach as HUD continues to improve its 

IT management. To this end, in order to monitor the Department’s 

progress, the Committee instructed GAO in 2012 to conduct several 

reviews. In 2013, GAO completed a review of the Department’s IT 

project management practices. The Committee reaffirms its direction to GAO to also evaluate HUD’s institutionalization of governance and cost estimating practices. In particular, the Committee remains interested in any cost savings or operational efficiencies that 

have resulted (or may result) from the Department’s improvement 

efforts. 

CORE Financial Systems.—The Committee notes that following 

challenges with HUD’s Integrated Financial Management Improvement Project [HIFMIP], HUD has undertaken an initiative to enter 

into a shared services contract with the Bureau of Public Debt’s 

Administrative Resource Center for its financial systems. The Committee is closely following this project because it is focused on ensuring that HUD has a sound financial system. The Committee expects HUD to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with quarterly updates on this project. The Committee 

also urges HUD to continue to consult with the OIG as this project 

moves forward. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $125,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 129,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 129,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation will finance all salaries and related expenses 

associated with the operation of the Office of the Inspector General 

[OIG]. 
144 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $129,000,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. The amount of funding is 

$4,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and equal 

to the President’s request. 

The Committee notes that the congressional justification lacked 

sufficient details around proposed increases, and expects the fiscal 

year 2016 congressional justification to clearly justify any proposed 

increases or decreases. 

The Committee directs HUD’s Office of Inspector General to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on 

ways in which HUD could improve its oversight of public housing 

authorities. This report should include: a summary of areas of risk 

the OIG has encountered in previous reviews of PHAs; if reforms 

the Department is implementing will address those areas of risk; 

if the Department is appropriately targeting its technical assistance funding; and the effectiveness of its finance and governance 

training. 

The Committee supports the OIG’s efforts to improve its information technology capacity, but the congressional justification does 

not provide sufficient detail on how these resources will be used 

and what additional capacity they will provide to the OIG. Therefore, the Committee directs the OIG to submit to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations, within 30 days of enactment 

of this act, a spending plan detailing its intended information technology acquisitions in fiscal year 2015. The Committee further directs the OIG to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment of this act 

identifying the OIG’s current information technology structure, systems and baseline costs, as well as its information technology strategy for fiscal year 2015 and future fiscal years. The report should 

identify planned acquisition of software and systems, associated 

costs, and the additional capacity the systems will provide. 

TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $40,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 1 ......................................................................... 80,000,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 40,000,000 1This amount is by transfer. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Transformation Initiative is the Department’s effort to improve and streamline the systems and operations at HUD. Managed by the Office of Strategic Planning and Management, this initiative has three elements: (1) research, evaluation, and program 

metrics; (2) program demonstrations; and (3) technical assistance 

and capacity building. Funding to support these activities is provided by transfer from other HUD programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes up to $40,000,000 for the Transformation Initiative [TI], which will be funded through transfers of 
145 

up to 0.5 percent from HUD programs, as requested. The budget 

proposed $80,000,000 for this activity. In fiscal year 2014, 

$40,000,000 was provided as a direct appropriation. 

In fiscal year 2010, the administration launched TI to improve 

the operations and capacity of HUD. TI funds research and demonstrations to better equip HUD to address the Nation’s housing 

needs. In addition to improving HUD’s own operations, TI also includes funding to improve the capacity and performance of its 

grantees through technical assistance [TA]. The Committee believes that the funding provided will help HUD develop evidencebased policies and improve program outcomes. 

Within the amount requested, at least $25,000,000 is for technical assistance [TA] across HUD programs. Of the amount for TA, 

at least $3,000,000 is to support training for public housing agencies on finance and governance. At least $500,000 is also included 

for culturally appropriate technical assistance to support implementation of the housing plus services model on reservations in Indian areas as part of the HUD–VASH pilot. 

TI also includes funding for research and demonstrations to help 

improve program understanding and service delivery. Of the 

amount provided, the recommendation supports $2,000,000 to continue the pre-purchase counseling demonstration; $650,000 to continue the rent reform demonstration; and $1,000,000 to continue 

the Small Area Market Rent Demonstration. In addition, the Committee supports adding funding for the following new projects: 

HUD–HHS data matching, accelerated post-disaster community recovery; an evaluation of the HUD–VASH pilot on Native American 

reservations; building technology research; and outreach and technical assistance around new Violence Against Women Act requirements. HUD can determine how to allocate the remaining funding 

between TA and the other research and demonstration projects it 

requested, and should include this information in its operating 

plan. 

The recommendation does not include funding for the Natural 

Experiments Grant Program or Demonstration and Related Small 

Grants. 

Fulfilling New VAWA Requirements.—In March 2013, the Violence Against Women Act of 2013 [VAWA] was enacted. Among the 

important housing related provisions included in the law are the 

expansion of core VAWA protections to additional Federal housing 

programs and the requirement that Federal housing assistance 

providers develop emergency transfer plans for survivors of domestic violence. These plans will help prepare housing providers to effectively assist tenants that are facing safety threats and need to 

move quickly. The Committee understands that HUD expects to 

issue a proposed rule on how to meet this requirement this summer. 

As a result of the circumstances facing those impacted by domestic violence, it is important that housing providers have an understanding of their particular needs so they can develop appropriate 

policies and responses to their situations. Coordination between 

service providers for survivors of domestic violence and housing 

systems is essential to developing sound policies and effectively 
146 

meeting the housing needs of those men and women trying to escape abusive environments and for domestic violence survivors. 

To help support HUD’s work to ensure that housing providers 

are fulfilling their responsibilities under VAWA, and to improve coordination between domestic violence support and housing systems, 

the Committee is providing $1,000,000 for activities related to 

VAWA implementation. Funding is provided to help identify and 

evaluate effective emergency transfer plans, in order to develop and 

disseminate best practices to providers. Funding is also available 

to facilitate coordination between housing and domestic violence 

service providers and systems. In addition, resources are available 

to educate housing providers on how to assist those impacted by 

domestic violence. The Committee directs HUD to work with the 

Department of Justice’s Office of Violence Against Women, as well 

as the Department of Health and Human Service’s Administration 

for Children and Families to improve Federal coordination. HUD 

should also coordinate with these Federal partners on the formulation of best practices and education of housing providers. 

Accelerated Post-Disaster Community Recovery.—The Community 

Development Block Grant is an important resource for communities trying to rebuild after disasters. While the Committee recognizes the benefit of CDBG in disaster recovery, it is also aware that 

many communities experience delays in deploying the funding they 

receive because they must develop new programs, or significantly 

increase the scale of existing ones, to meet disaster related needs. 

In addition to designing programs, communities must also put systems in place to ensure funding is appropriately used and does not 

duplicate other Federal programs. 

Since Hurricane Katrina, HUD has learned a great deal about 

how to successfully address needs arising from disasters, including 

programs that communities commonly use to facilitate long-term 

recovery, as well as how to effectively partner with other Federal 

agencies. HUD can use its experience to not only help communities 

think about programs that are well-suited to their recovery needs, 

but also how to set up these programs more quickly. 

The Committee is including $2,000,000 for HUD to do a demonstration on accelerated post-disaster community recovery. Under 

the demonstration, HUD will do research into best practices based 

on the experience of previous CDBG disaster grant recipients. 

Based on this research, it will develop model programs and forms 

for communities to use in establishing their own programs. The 

demonstration should also include the development of IT infrastructure that would allow for data sharing across HUD programs 

and with other agencies. To maximize the effectiveness of the demonstration, the Committee directs HUD to work with those Federal 

agencies that are often involved in disaster recovery, such as the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency and Small Business Administration. The Committee expects that with a menu of programs 

ready to implement, communities will be better equipped for disaster recovery and able to provide relief to those impacted by disasters more quickly. 
147 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends administrative provisions. A brief 

description follows. 

SEC. 201. This section promotes the refinancing of certain housing bonds. 

SEC. 202. This section clarifies a limitation on the use of funds 

under the Fair Housing Act. 

SEC. 203. This section extends sections 203 and 209 of the Fiscal 

Year 2012 Appropriations Act that clarifies the allocation of 

HOPWA funding for fiscal year 2006 and beyond. 

SEC. 204. This section requires HUD to award funds on a competitive basis unless otherwise provided. 

SEC. 205. This section allows funds to be used to reimburse GSEs 

and other Federal entities for various administrative expenses. 

SEC. 206. This section limits HUD spending to amounts set out 

in the budget justification. 

SEC. 207. This section clarifies expenditure authority for entities 

subject to the Government Corporation Control Act. 

SEC. 208. This section requires quarterly reports on all uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD programs. 

SEC. 209. This section requires HUD to submit the congressional 

justification in the same account and subaccount structure. 

SEC. 210. This section exempts Los Angeles County, Alaska, 

Iowa, and Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA resident on the board of directors for fiscal year 2015. Instead, the public housing agencies in these States are required to establish advisory boards that include public housing tenants and section 8 recipients. 

SEC. 211. This section exempts GNMA from certain requirements 

of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. 

SEC. 212. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer of 

existing project-based subsidies and liabilities from obsolete housing to housing that better meets the needs of the assisted tenants. 

SEC. 213. This section reforms certain section 8 rent calculations 

as related to athletic scholarships. 

SEC. 214. This section provides allocation requirements for Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block 

Grant program. 

SEC. 215. This section eliminates a cap on Home Equity Conversion Mortgages for fiscal year 2015. 

SEC. 216. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8 assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing. 

SEC. 217. This section clarifies the use of the 108 loan guaranteed program for nonentitlement communities. 

SEC. 218. This section allows public housing authorities with less 

than 400 units to be exempt from management requirements in the 

operating fund rule. 

SEC. 219. This section restricts the Secretary from imposing any 

requirement or guideline relating to asset management that restricts or limits the use of capital funds for central office costs, up 

to the limit established in QWHRA. 
148 

SEC. 220. This section requires allotment holders to meet certain 

criteria of the CFO. 

SEC. 221. This section requires the Secretary to report annually 

on the status of all project-based section 8 housing. 

SEC. 222. The section modifies the NOFA process to include the 

Internet. 

SEC. 223. This section limits attorney fees. 

SEC. 224. This section establishes reprogramming and reallocation requirements within HUD’s salaries and expenses accounts. 

SEC. 225. This section allows the Disaster Housing Assistance 

Programs to be considered HUD programs for the purpose of income verification and matching. 

SEC. 226. This section requires HUD to take certain actions 

against owners receiving rental subsidies that do not maintain safe 

properties. 

SEC. 227. This section places limits on PHA compensation. 

SEC. 228. This section extends the HOPE VI program until September 30, 2015. 

SEC. 229. This section allows the Secretary to transfer funding 

from salaries and expenses accounts to the ‘‘Information Technology Fund’’ to support technology improvements. 

SEC. 230. This section prohibits funds from being used for the 

doctoral dissertation research grant program. 

SEC. 231. This section modifies the Rental Assistance Demonstration included in the fiscal year 2012 bill. 

SEC. 232. This section requires the Secretary to provide the Committee with advance notification before discretionary awards are 

made. 

SEC. 233. This section extends section 579 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 through October 1, 2018. 

SEC. 234. This section allows PHAs to establish replacement reserves to address capital needs. 

SEC. 235. This section increases the flexibility of public housing 

authorities to transfer funds between their capital and operating 

funds. 

SEC. 236. This section makes changes to the HOME Investment 

Partnerships program. 

SEC. 237. This section allows the Secretary to conduct a demonstration to test a performance-based model program that facilitates financing of energy and water conservation improvements in 

assisted multifamily housing to reduce utility costs. 

SEC. 238. This section makes modifications to SHOP to reflect 

current uses of the funding and limit the amount that can be used 

for administrative expenses. 

SEC. 239. This section requires lenders that provide loans under 

the Native American Loan program to consider loan modifications 

and meet standards for servicing loans in default before the payment of a claim by HUD. 

SEC. 240. This section permits HUD to charge a fee on FHA 

mortgages to be used to cover administrative costs. 

SEC. 241. This section permits HUD to publish Fair Market 

Rents online. 
149 

SEC. 242. This section rescinds balances from various HUD programs that are no longer funded. 

SEC. 243. This section clarifies that the HAWK program shall be 

funded within amounts appropriated. 

SEC. 244. This section allows for multi-year housing counseling 

grants, subject to appropriations. 

SEC. 245. This section amends section 526 of the National Housing Act to permits exceptions for alternative water systems that 

meet requirements of State and local building codes that ensure 

health and safety standards. 

SEC. 246. This section allows the Secretary to make assistance 

available from the CDBG Sanctions Fund to States for use by a 

non-entitlement area that had a major disaster declared in 2014. 
(150) 

TITLE III 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

ACCESS BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $7,448,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 7,548,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,548,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Access Board (formerly known as the Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance Board) was established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board is responsible for developing guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Architectural Barriers Act, and the Telecommunications Act. These guidelines ensure that buildings and facilities, 

transportation vehicles, and telecommunications equipment covered 

by these laws are readily accessible to and usable by people with 

disabilities. The Board is also responsible for developing standards 

under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act for accessible electronic 

and information technology used by Federal agencies, and for medical diagnostic equipment under section 510 of the Rehabilitation 

Act. The Access Board also enforces the Architectural Barriers Act, 

ensuring accessibility to a wide range of Federal agencies, including national parks, post offices, social security offices, and prisons. 

In addition, the Board provides training and technical assistance 

on the guidelines and standards it develops to Government agencies, public and private organizations, individuals and businesses 

on the removal of accessibility barriers. 

In 2002, the Access Board was given additional responsibilities 

under the Help America Vote Act. The Board serves on the Board 

of Advisors and the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, 

which helps the Election Assistance Commission develop voluntary 

guidelines and guidance for voting systems, including accessibility 

for people with disabilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,548,000 for the operations of the 

Access Board. This level of funding is $100,000 more than the 2014 

enacted level and equal to the President’s fiscal year 2015 request. 
151 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $24,669,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 25,660,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,660,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is an independent regulatory agency which administers the Shipping Act of 1984 (Public 

Law 98–237), as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 

1998 (Public Law 105–258); section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act 

of 1920 (41 Stat. 998); the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 

(Public Law 100–418); and Public Law 89–777. 

FMC’s mission is to foster a fair, efficient, and reliable international ocean transportation system and to protect the public from 

unfair and deceptive practices. To accomplish this mission, FMC 

regulates the international waterborne commerce of the United 

States. In addition, FMC has responsibility for licensing and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and assuring that vessel 

owners or operators establish financial responsibility to pay judgments for death or injury to passengers, or nonperformance of a 

cruise, on voyages from U.S. ports. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,660,000 for the salaries and expenses of the FMC for fiscal year 2015. This amount is equal to the 

President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request and $991,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The request for additional 

funding and collection of user fees up to $300,000 for necessary and 

authorized agency expenses to support an additional four full-time 

equivalent employees and to invest in mission-critical technologies 

is approved. Any user fees collected should be directed towards updating outdated information technology infrastructure, specifically 

hardware and software needs. 

The Committee commends FMC’s efforts to promote access to foreign markets for American exports and efficient supply chains for 

the importation of goods for domestic production and consumption, 

pursuits that support economic growth and job creation. The Committee also supports FMC’s continued efforts to protect consumers 

from potentially unlawful, unfair, or deceptive ocean transportation 

practices related to the movement of household goods or personal 

property in international oceanborne trade. 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $23,449,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 24,449,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 23,449,000 
152 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Inspector General for Amtrak was created by the 

Inspector General Act Amendment of 1988. The act recognized Amtrak as a ‘‘designated Federal entity’’ and required the railroad to 

establish an independent and objective unit to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of Amtrak; recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in Amtrak, and prevent and detect fraud and abuse; and to provide a means for keeping the Amtrak leadership and the Congress fully informed about problems in 

Amtrak operations and the corporation’s progress in making corrective action. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $23,449,000 for the Amtrak Office of 

Inspector General [OIG]. This funding level is $1,000,000 less than 

the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

The Committee retains language that requires the Amtrak OIG to 

submit a budget request in similar format and substance to those 

submitted by other executive agencies in the Federal Government. 

The Committee commends the progress the OIG has made to implement an appropriate separation of duties, financial systems and 

hiring practices since fiscal year 2010. At that time, the Committee 

raised concerns with the lack of a fully independent and effective 

Amtrak OIG. The Committee changed the way the agency was 

funded to a direct appropriation. The Committee also required the 

Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency [CIGIE] 

to review the OIG’s policies and practices that were developed to 

achieve operational independence from Amtrak. The 2011 CIGIE 

study made 41 recommendations to improve management, communications, investigative practices and operations. A subsequent fiscal year 2013 CIGIE peer review determined that the system of 

audit quality controls conformed to applicable professional standards and made no further recommendations. CIGIE also concluded 

that the OIG’s system of internal safeguards and management procedures for investigations met CIGIE quality standards and Attorneys General Guidelines. Therefore, the OIG is no longer required 

to report semi-annually on its progress in addressing CIGIE recommendations since they have all been fully satisfied and implemented. 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $103,027,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 103,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 103,981,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Initially established along with the Department of Transportation, the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent Federal 

agency. The Board is charged by Congress with investigating every 
153 

civil aviation accident in the United States as well as significant 

accidents in the other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, 

marine, and pipeline—and issuing safety recommendations aimed 

at preventing future accidents. Although it has always operated 

independently, NTSB relied on DOT for funding and administrative support until the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Public 

Law 93–633) severed all ties between the two organizations starting in 1975. 

In addition to its investigatory duties, NTSB is responsible for 

maintaining the Government’s database of civil aviation accidents 

and also conducts special studies of transportation safety issues of 

national significance. Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international treaties, NTSB supplies investigators to serve 

as U.S. accredited representatives for aviation accidents overseas 

involving U.S.-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or major 

components of U.S. manufacture. NTSB also serves as the ‘‘court 

of appeals’’ for any airman, mechanic, or mariner whenever certificate action is taken by the Federal Aviation Administration or the 

U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are assessed by FAA. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $103,981,000 for the National 

Transportation Safety Board, which is $981,000 more than the 

budget request and $954,000 more than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The Committee has also continued to include language 

that allows NTSB to make payments on its lease for the NTSB 

training facility with funding provided in the bill. 

These additional resources are necessary to protect the NTSB’s 

workforce. Under the administration’s budget request, the NTSB 

would lose a total of five FTE—one from its railroad, pipeline and 

hazardous materials investigations office; one from its research and 

engineering office, and three from its aviation safety office. NTSB, 

however, must maintain a highly skilled workforce to investigate 

accidents, determine their probable causes, and extract important 

lessons so that future accidents may be prevented. No other agency 

or organization in the United States does the work of the NTSB, 

acting as an honest broker and offering unbiased analysis and safety recommendations. 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $204,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 182,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 186,600,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by the 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public Law 

95–557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation now operates under the trade name, ‘‘NeighborWorks America.’’ NeighborWorks America helps local communities establish ef-
154 

ficient and effective partnerships between residents and representatives of the public and private sectors. These partnership-based 

organizations are independent, tax-exempt, nonprofit entities and 

are frequently known as Neighborhood Housing Services or mutual 

housing associations. 

Collectively, these organizations are known as the 

NeighborWorks network. Nationally, 235 NeighborWorks organizations serve nearly 3,000 urban, suburban, and rural communities 

in 49 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $186,600,000 for 

NeighborWorks for fiscal year 2015. This amount is $4,600,000 

more than the budget request and $17,500,000 less than the fiscal 

year 2014 enacted level. The Committee has included $136,600,000 

to support NeighborWorks core programs, and continues to support 

the set-aside of $5,000,000 for the multifamily rental housing initiative, which has been successful in developing innovative approaches to producing mixed-income affordable housing throughout 

the Nation. The Committee directs NeighborWorks to provide a 

status report on this initiative in its fiscal year 2016 budget justification. 

Housing Counseling Assistance.—The Committee has included 

$50,000,000, as requested, to continue the National Foreclosure 

Mitigation Counseling Program [NFMC] initiated by Congress in 

fiscal year 2008. NFMC is not a permanent program, and the reduced funding level reflects improvements in the housing market. 

According to Black Knight Mortgage Monitor’s report on the mortgage market from March 2014, delinquencies are at the lowest 

level since 2007 and foreclosures are at the lowest level since 2008. 

While the overall market is improving, certain markets are still experiencing high rates of foreclosure and delinquency, justifying continued funding of this program. Since NFMC funds are allocated 

based on loan performance data, the fiscal year 2015 awards 

should be targeted to areas that continue to face high levels of foreclosure. 

Mortgage Rescue Scams.—Since 2009, NeighborWorks has been 

working to raise awareness of mortgage rescue scams and help vulnerable homeowners access legitimate forms of assistance. This 

campaign targets at-risk communities and populations through 

public service announcements, public media, and the Internet. 

NeighborWorks is working with other partners, such as the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission to stop rescue 

scams. The Committee expects NeighborWorks to continue working 

with its partners to address this important issue. 

Rural Areas.—The Committee continues to support 

Neighborworks’ efforts to build capacity in rural areas. The Committee urges the Corporation to continue these efforts. 
155 

UNITED STATES INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2014 ............................................................................. $3,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ........................................................................... 3,530,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,530,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is an 

independent agency created by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 to coordinate and direct the multiple efforts of 

Federal agencies and other designated groups. The Council was authorized to review Federal programs that assist homeless persons 

and to take necessary actions to reduce duplication. The Council 

can recommend improvements in programs and activities conducted by Federal, State, and local government, as well as local 

volunteer organizations. The Council consists of the heads of 19 

Federal agencies, including the Departments of Housing and Urban 

Development, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Labor, and Transportation; 

and other entities as deemed appropriate. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,530,000 for 

the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [USICH]. 

This amount is equal to the budget request and $30,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

USICH supports Federal collaboration and implementation of the 

Federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. The Council’s work on such issues as establishing common definitions of 

homelessness across programs and consolidating Federal data is 

helping to breakdown silos and increase Federal collaboration. Its 

work was recognized by GAO in its February 2012 report on ways 

to reduce duplication, overlap, and fragmentation in the Federal 

Government. The Committee recommendation extends USICH’s authorization so it can continue its important work. 

The Committee is aware that individuals who are homeless or in 

unstable housing situations are often living with multiple chronic 

conditions. The link between homelessness and long-term physical 

and behavioral health conditions is well documented. The Committee has recognized the cost-savings that can be achieved by 

using evidence-based practices, and has been supportive of such efforts, including through the HUD–VASH program and other permanent supportive housing through HUD’s homeless assistance 

grants program. However, the Committee believes that more can be 

done to emphasize evidence-based practices in serving other populations. The Committee directs the USICH to continue to work to 

improve coordination between HUD, HHS and other Federal agencies, and to help communities use the Homeless Management Information System and other data to target affordable housing and 

homeless resources to high-need, high-cost families and individuals. 

The Committee further encourages HUD to work with HHS and 

other Federal agencies to identify homeless individuals who have 

high utilization rates for emergency and other public services, and 
156 

share strategies for combining affordable housing with health and 

social support services to improve both housing and health outcomes for these individuals. 

Homeless Youth.—One of the goals of the Federal Strategic Plan 

is to prevent and end homelessness among youth by 2020. The plan 

identifies four core targeted outcomes for youth experiencing homelessness—stable housing, permanent connections, education and 

employment, and social/emotional well-being. These outcomes appropriately identify the multiple needs of youth experiencing homelessness and underscore the importance of comprehensive solutions. To be successful, it will be critical to coordinate Federal services and programs and ensure that they are focused on these outcomes. 

The Committee notes that USICH has a working group on ending youth homelessness and has made improving data on youth 

homelessness and building capacity for service delivery priorities. 

The Committee supports these efforts and urges USICH to continue to facilitate data coordination and ensure the homeless services are youth appropriate. 

The Committee also directs USICH to undertake a review of Federal programs that can help prevent and end youth homelessness. 

This review should identify barriers to effective coordination, as 

well as ways to ensure that Federal programs serving homeless 

youth are designed to achieve the outcomes identified in the Federal strategic plan. The Committee requests that USICH deliver 

this report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

within 120 days of enactment of this act. 
(157) 

TITLE IV 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS ACT 

Section 401 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-Federal 

parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this act. 

Section 402 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal year 

and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so provided herein. 

Section 403 limits expenditures for consulting service through 

procurement contracts where such expenditures are a matter of 

public record and available for public inspection. 

Section 404 prohibits the use of funds for employee training unless such training bears directly upon the performance of official 

duties. 

Section 405 authorizes the reprogramming of funds and specifies 

the reprogramming procedures for agencies funded by this act. 

Section 406 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances may 

remain available for certain purposes. 

Section 407 prohibits the use of funds for eminent domain unless 

such taking is employed for public use. 

Section 408 requires departments and agencies under this act to 

report information regarding all sole-source contracts. 

Section 409 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred without 

express authority. 

Section 410 protects employment rights of Federal employees 

who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the Armed 

Forces. 

Section 411 prohibits the use of funds for activities not in compliance with the Buy American Act. 

Section 412 prohibits funding for any person or entity convicted 

of violating the Buy American Act. 

Section 413 prohibits funds for first-class airline accommodation 

in contravention of section 301–10.122 and 301–10.123 of title 41 

CFR. 

Section 414 prohibits providing funds in this act or any prior act 

to the group ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied 

organizations. 

Section 415 restricts funds in this act from being used to enter 

into contracts with corporations that have recently been convicted 

of a felony criminal violation. 

Section 416 restricts funds in this act from being used to enter 

into contracts with corporations that have outstanding unpaid Federal tax liabilities for which all judicial or administrative remedies 

have been exhausted. 

Section 417 is a sense of Congress that Congress should not authorize spending cuts that would increase domestic poverty. 
158 

Section 418 requires all agencies and departments funded in this 

act to report their vehicle fleet inventory and associated costs to 

Congress at the end of fiscal year 2015. 

Section 419 prohibits the use of any funds provided in this act 

for the painting of portraits of officers or employees of the Federal 

Government, including heads of Executive branch agencies, the 

military, independent agencies, and wholly owned Government corporations. 

Section 420 requires agencies funded in this act to report to their 

inspector general on the costs and other details of conferences held 

during fiscal year 2015. 

Section 421 restricts the number of employees agencies funded in 

this act may send to international conferences. 

Section 422 requires reports submitted by agencies funded in this 

act to be posted on the public agency Web site 30 days after its receipt by the Committee. 

Section 423 requires a detailed, annual report on any advertising 

expenditure made by any agency funded in this act. 

Section 424 prohibits using funds provided in this act to award 

bonuses to contractors on certain projects. 

Section 425 prohibits funds provided in this act from being used 

for premium travel by an agency that has not reported to GSA on 

premium travel during fiscal year 2014. 

Section 426 requires a report detailing efforts to address duplication identified by GAO’s annual report on duplication. 

Section 427 prohibits funds from being used to purchase light 

bulbs for an office building unless, to the extent practicable, the 

light bulb has an Energy Star or Federal Energy Management Program designation. 

Section 428 requires agencies and departments funded in this act 

to respond to GAO recommendations in a timely manner. 
(159) 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to 

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is 

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty 

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate 

during that session.’’ 

The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not covered 

under this rule, but reports this information in the spirit of full disclosure. 

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2015: 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Infrastructure Investments 

Federal Highway Administration 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Federal Transit Administration 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Rental Assistance: 

Rental Assistance Demonstration 

Section 8 Contract Renewals and Administrative Expenses 

Section 441 Contracts 

Section 8 Preservation, Protection, and Family Unification 

Contract Administrators 

Public Housing Capital Fund 

Public Housing Operating Fund 

Choice Neighborhoods 

Native American Housing Block Grant 

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant 

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund 

Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund 

Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids 

Community Development Fund: 

Community Development Block Grants 

Integrated Planning and Investment Grants 

HOME Program: 

HOME Investment Partnership 

Self Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity: 

Capacity Building 

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program 
160 

National Housing Development Corporation 

FHA General and Special Risk Program Account: 

Limitation on Guaranteed Loans 

Limitation on Direct Loans 

Credit Subsidy 

Administrative Expenses 

GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program Account: 

Limitation on Guaranteed Loans 

Administrative Expenses 

Policy Development and Research 

Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Program 

Lead Hazards Reduction Program 

Healthy Homes Program 

Salaries and Expenses 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES

National Transportation Safety Board 

Amtrak Office of Inspector General 

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

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 5, 2014, the 

Committee ordered favorably reported an original bill making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing 

and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, provided, that 

the bill be subject to amendment and that the bill be consistent 

with the subcommittee allocation, by a recorded vote of 29–1, a 

quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairwoman Mikulski Mr. Johanns 

Mr. Leahy 

Mr. Harkin 

Mrs. Murray 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Johnson 

Ms. Landrieu 

Mr. Reed 

Mr. Pryor 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Udall 

Mrs. Shaheen 

Mr. Merkley 

Mr. Begich 

Mr. Coons 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Cochran 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Collins 

Ms. Murkowski 
161 

Mr. Graham 

Mr. Kirk 

Mr. Coats 

Mr. Blunt 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Hoeven 

Mr. Boozman 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the committee.’’ 

In compliance with this rule, the following changes in existing 

law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing 

law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is 

printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is proposed 

is shown in roman. 

TITLE 12—BANKS AND BANKING 

CHAPTER 13—NATIONAL HOUSING

SUBCHAPTER II—MORTGAGE INSURANCE

§ 1701x. Assistance with respect to housing for low- and 

moderate-income families 

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

appropriations 

* * * * * * * 

(i) Accountability for recipients of covered assistance 

(1) Tracking of funds 

* * * * * * * 

(3) Covered assistance 

For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘covered assistance’’ means any grant or other financial assistance provided 

under this section. 

(j) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—For purposes of this section, the 

Secretary may enter into multiyear agreements as is appropriate, 

subject to the availability of annual appropriations. 

* * * * * * * 
162 

§ 1708. Federal Housing Administration operations 

(a) Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund 

* * * * * * * 

(h) Use of name 

The Secretary shall, by regulation, require each mortgagee approved by the Secretary for participation in the FHA mortgage insurance programs of the Secretary— 

(1) to use the business name of the mortgagee that is registered with the Secretary in connection with such approval in 

all advertisements and promotional materials, as such terms 

are defined by the Secretary, relating to the business of such 

mortgagee in such mortgage insurance programs; and 

(2) to maintain copies of all such advertisements and promotional materials, in such form and for such period as the 

Secretary requires. 

(i) ADMINISTRATION.—Notwithstanding any provision of law, 

and in addition to any other fees charged in connection with the 

provision of insurance under this title, in each fiscal year the Secretary may charge and collect a fee not to exceed 4 basis points of 

the original principal balance of mortgages originated by the mortgagee that were insured under this title during the previous fiscal 

year. Such fee collected from each mortgagee shall be used as offsetting collections for part of the administrative contract expenses 

funding and any necessary salaries and expenses funding provided 

under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account under this 

title. The Secretary may establish the amount of such fee through 

regulations, notice, Mortgagee Letter, or other administrative 

issuance. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1715z–13a. Loan guarantees for Indian housing 

(a) Authority 

* * * * * * * 

(h) Payment under guarantee 

(1) Lender options 

(A) In general 

* * * * * * * 

(B) Requirements 

Before any payment under a guarantee is made under 

subparagraph (A), the holder of the guarantee shall exhaust all reasonable possibilities of collection. Exhausting 

all reasonable possibilities of collection by the holder of the 

guarantee shall include a good faith consideration of loan 

modification as well as meeting standards for servicing 

loans in default, as determined by the Secretary. Upon payment, in whole or in part, to the holder, the note or judgment evidencing the debt shall be assigned to the United 

States and the holder shall have no further claim against 

the borrower or the United States. The Secretary shall 
163 

then take such action to collect as the Secretary determines appropriate. 

* * * * * * * 

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 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 8—LOW-INCOME HOUSING

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING

§ 1437f. Low-income housing assistance 

(a) Authorization for assistance payments 

* * * * * * * 

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

(1)(A) An assistance contract entered into pursuant to this section shall establish the maximum monthly rent (including utilities 

and all maintenance and management charges) which the owner is 

entitled to receive for each dwelling unit with respect to which such 

assistance payments are to be made. The maximum monthly rent 

shall not exceed by more than 10 per centum the fair market rental 

established by the Secretary periodically but not less than annually 

for existing or newly constructed rental dwelling units of various 

sizes and types in the market area suitable for occupancy by persons assisted under this section, except that the maximum monthly 

rent may exceed the fair market rental (A) by more than 10 but 

not more than 20 per centum where the Secretary determines that 

special circumstances warrant such higher maximum rent or that 

such higher rent is necessary to the implementation of a housing 

strategy as defined in section 12705 of this title, or (B) by such 
164 

higher amount as may be requested by a tenant and approved by 

the public housing agency in accordance with paragraph (3)(B). In 

the case of newly constructed and substantially rehabilitated units, 

the exception in the preceding sentence shall not apply to more 

than 20 per centum of the total amount of authority to enter into 

annual contributions contracts for such units which is allocated to 

an area and obligated with respect to any fiscal year beginning on 

or after October 1, 1980. øProposed fair market rentals for an area 

shall be published in the Federal Register with reasonable time for 

public comment, and shall become effective upon the date of publication in final form in the Federal Register.¿ Each fair market 

rental in effect under this subsection shall be adjusted to be effective on October 1 of each year to reflect changes, based on the most 

recent available data trended so the rentals will be current for the 

year to which they apply, of rents for existing or newly constructed 

rental dwelling units, as the case may be, of various sizes and 

types in the market area suitable for occupancy by persons assisted 

under this section. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, after October 12, 1977, the Secretary shall prohibit high-rise 

elevator projects for families with children unless there is no practical alternative. øThe Secretary shall establish separate fair market rentals under this paragraph for Westchester County in the 

State of New York. The Secretary shall also establish separate fair 

market rentals under this paragraph for Monroe County in the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In establishing fair market rentals for the remaining portion of the market area in which Monroe 

County is located, the Secretary shall establish the fair market 

rentals as if such portion included Monroe County.¿ If units assisted under this section are exempt from local rent control while 

they are so assisted or otherwise, the maximum monthly rent for 

such units shall be reasonable in comparison with other units in 

the market area that are exempt from local rent control. 

(B) PUBLICATION OF FAIR MARKET RENTALS.—Not less than annually: 

(i) The Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register that proposed fair market rentals for an area have been 

published on the site of the Department on the Internet and in 

any other manner specified by the Secretary. Such notice shall 

describe proposed material changes in the methodology for estimating fair market rentals and shall provide reasonable time 

for public comment. 

(ii) The Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register that final fair market rentals have been published on the 

site of the Department on the internet and in any other manner 

specified by the Secretary. Such notice shall include the final 

decisions regarding proposed substantial methodological 

changes for estimating fair market rentals and responses to 

public comments. 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘[SECS. 571 to 578. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–65, title V, § 579(a)(2), 

as added by Pub. L. 107–116, title VI, § 621(1), Jan. 10, 2002, 115 

Stat. 2226.] 

‘‘SEC. 579. TERMINATION. 

‘‘(a) REPEALS.— 
165 

‘‘(1) MARK-TO-MARKET PROGRAM.—Subtitle A (except for 

section 524) is repealed effective øOctober 1, 2015¿ October 1, 

2018. 

‘‘(2) OMHAR.—Subtitle D (except for this section) is repealed effective October 1, 2004. 

‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding the repeal under subsection 

(a), the provisions of subtitle A (as in effect immediately before 

such repeal) shall apply with respect to projects and programs for 

which binding commitments have been entered into under this Act 

before øOctober 1, 2015¿ October 1, 2018. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1437g. Public housing Capital and Operating Funds 

(a) Merger into Capital Fund 

* * * * * * * 

(g) Limitations on use of funds 

(1)(A) Flexibility for Capital Fund amounts 

Of any amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2000 or any 

fiscal year thereafter that are allocated for fiscal year 2000 or 

any fiscal year thereafter from the Capital Fund for any public 

housing agency, the agency may use not more than 20 percent 

for activities that are eligible under subsection (e) of this section for assistance with amounts from the Operating Fund, but 

only if the public housing agency plan for the agency provides 

for such use; and 

(B) FLEXIBILITY FOR OPERATING FUND AMOUNTS.—Of any 

amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2015 or any fiscal year 

thereafter that are allocated for fiscal year 2015 or any fiscal 

year thereafter from the Operating Fund for any public housing 

agency, the agency may use not more than 20 percent for activities that are eligible under subsection (d) for assistance with 

amounts from the Capital Fund, but only if the public housing 

plan for the agency provides for such use. 

* * * * * * * 

(j) Penalty for slow expenditure of capital funds 

(1) Obligation of amounts 

* * * * * * * 

(6) Right of recapture 

Any obligation entered into by a public housing agency 

shall be subject to the right of the Secretary to recapture the 

obligated amounts for violation by the public housing agency of 

the requirements of this subsection. 

(7) TREATMENT OF REPLACEMENT RESERVE.—The requirements of this subsection shall not apply to funds held in replacement reserves established in subsection (9)(n). 

* * * * * * * 

(m) Treatment of public housing 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 
166 

(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 RE- SERVE.—At any time, a public housing authority may deposit 

funds from that agency’s Capital Fund into a Replacement Reserve subject to the following: 

(A) At the discretion of the Secretary, PHAs may be allowed to transfer and hold in a Replacement Reserve, funds 

originating from additional sources. 

(B) No minimum transfer of funds to a Replacement 

Reserve shall be required. 

(C) At any time, a public housing authority may not 

hold in a Replacement Reserve more than the amount the 

public housing authority has determined necessary to satisfy the anticipated capital needs of properties in its portfolio assisted under 42 U.S.C. 1437g as outlined in its Capital Fund 5 Year Action Plan, or a comparable plan, as determined by the Secretary. 

(D) The Secretary may establish by regulation a maximum replacement reserve level or levels that are below 

amounts determined under subparagraph (C), which may 

be based upon the size of the portfolio assisted under 42 

U.S.C. 1437g or other factors. 

(3) In first establishing a replacement reserve, the Secretary 

may allow public housing agencies to transfer more than 20 

percent of its operating funds into its replacement reserve. 

(4) EXPENDITURE.—Funds in a Replacement Reserve may 

be used for purposes authorized by subparagraph (d)(1) and 

contained in its Capital Fund 5 Year Action Plan. 

(5) MANAGEMENT AND REPORT.—The Secretary shall establish appropriate accounting and reporting requirements to ensure that public housing agencies are spending funding on eligible projects and that funding in the reserve is connected to 

capital needs. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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 2014.¿ fiscal year 

2015. 

* * * * * * * 
167 

(o) Sunset 

No assistance may be provided under this section after øSeptember 30, 2014.¿ September 30, 2015. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 69—COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

§ 5308. Guarantee and commitment to guarantee loans for 

acquisition of property 

(a) Authority of Secretary; issuance of obligations by eligible public entities or designated public agencies; form, 

denomination, maturity, and conditions of notes or 

other obligations; percentage allocation requirements 

The Secretary is authorized, upon such terms and conditions 

as the Secretary may prescribe, to guarantee and make commitments to guarantee, only to such extent or in such amounts as provided in appropriation Acts, the notes or other obligations issued 

by eligible public entities, States on behalf of non-entitlement communities, or by public agencies designated by such eligible public 

entities, for the purposes of financing (1) acquisition of real property or the rehabilitation of real property owned by the eligible 

public entity (including such related expenses as the Secretary may 

permit by regulation); (2) housing rehabilitation; (3) economic development activities permitted under paragraphs (14), (15), and 

(17) of section 5305(a) of this title; (4) construction of housing by 

nonprofit organizations for homeownership under section 1437o(d) 1

of this title or title VI of the Housing and Community Development 

Act of 1987; (5) the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, or installation of public facilities (except for buildings for the general 

conduct of government); or (6) in the case of colonias (as such term 

is defined in section 916 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act), public works and site or other improvements. A 

guarantee under this section may be used to assist a grantee in obtaining financing only if the grantee has made efforts to obtain 

such financing without the use of such guarantee and cannot complete such financing consistent with the timely execution of the 

program plans without such guarantee. Notes or other obligations 

guaranteed pursuant to this section shall be in such form and denominations, have such maturities, and be subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations issued by the Secretary. 

The Secretary may not deny a guarantee under this section on the 

basis of the proposed repayment period for the note or other obligation, unless the period is more than 20 years or the Secretary determines that the period causes the guarantee to constitute an unacceptable financial risk. Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law and subject only to the absence of qualified applicants or proposed activities and to the authority provided in this section, to the 

extent approved or provided in appropriation Acts, the Secretary 

shall enter into commitments to guarantee notes and obligations 

under this section with an aggregate principal amount of 

$2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1993 and $2,000,000,000 for fiscal 

year 1994. Of the amount approved in any appropriation Act for 

guarantees under this section in any fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
168 

allocate 70 percent for guarantees for metropolitan cities, urban 

counties, and Indian tribes and 30 percent for guarantees for units 

of general local government in nonentitlement areas. The Secretary 

may waive the percentage requirements of the preceding sentence 

in any fiscal year only to the extent that there is an absence of 

qualified applicants or proposed activities from metropolitan cities, 

urban counties, and Indian tribes or units of general local government in nonentitlement areas. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(k) Outstanding obligations; limitation; monitoring use of 

guarantees under this section 

ø(1) The total amount of outstanding obligations guaranteed on 

a cumulative basis by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) of 

this section shall not at any time exceed $4,500,000,000 or such 

higher amount as may be authorized to be appropriated for sections 5306 and 5307 of this title for any fiscal year. 

ø(2) The Secretary shall monitor the use of guarantees under 

this section by eligible public entities. If the Secretary finds that 

50 percent of the aggregate guarantee authority has been committed, the Secretary may— 

ø(A) impose limitations on the amount of guarantees any 

one entity may receive in any fiscal year of $35,000,000 for 

units of general local government receiving grants under section 5306(b) of this title and $7,000,000 for units of general 

local government receiving grants under section 5306(d) of this 

title; or 

ø(B) request the enactment of legislation increasing the aggregate limitation on guarantees under this section.¿ 

(k) The Secretary shall monitor the use by eligible public entities and States of commitment amounts authorized in appropriation 

Acts for any fiscal year. If the Secretary finds that 50 percent of the 

annual commitment amount has been committed, the Secretary may 

impose a limitation on the amount of guarantees any one entity may 

receive in any fiscal year of $35,000,000 for units of general local 

government receiving grants under section 106(b) or States receiving 

grants under section 106(d) and $7,000,000 for units of general 

local government receiving grants under section 106(d); or request 

the enactment of legislation increasing the annual commitment authority for guarantees under this section. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(m) Limitation on imposition of fee or charge 

No fee or charge may be imposed by the Secretary or any other 

Federal agency on or with respect to a guarantee made by the Secretary under this section after February 5, 1988.¿ 

(m) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN NONENTITLEMENT AREAS.—Any State receiving a guarantee or commitment on behalf of non-entitlement areas shall distribute all funds 

that are subject to such guarantee to the units of general local government in non-entitlement areas that received the commitment. 

* * * * * * * 
169 

1So in original. Probably should be followed by a period. 

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. 

* * * * * * * 

ø§ 11319. Termination 

The Council shall cease to exist, and the requirements of this 

subchapter shall terminate, on October 1, 2016 1¿ 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 130—NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS AND POLICIES

§ 12704. Definitions 

As used in this subchapter and in subchapter II of this chapter: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(6) The term ‘‘community housing development organization’’ means a nonprofit organization as defined in paragraph 

(5), that— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) has a history of serving the local community or 

communities within which housing to be assisted under 

this Act is to be located. 

In the case of an organization funded by the State under title 

II of this Act, the organization may serve all counties within the 

State. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER II—INVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING

§ 12755. Tenant and participant protections 

(a) Lease 

* * * * * * * 

(b) Termination of tenancy 
170 

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). 

* * * * * * * 

§ 12805. Sweat equity model program 

ASSISTANCE FOR SELF-HELP HOUSING PROVIDERS

Pub. L. 104–120, § 11, Mar. 28, 1996, 110 Stat. 841, as amended by Pub. L. 

105–276, title V, § 599E(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2663; Pub. L. 106–569, title II, 

§ 202, Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2951; Pub. L. 108–285, § 2, Aug. 2, 2004, 118 Stat. 

917, provided that: 

‘‘(a) GRANT AUTHORITY.—* * * 

‘‘(b) GOALS AND ACCOUNTABILITY.* * * 

‘‘(1) assistance provided under this section is used to facilitate and encourage innovative homeownership opportunities 

through the provision of self-help housing, under which the 

homeowner contributes a significant amount of sweat equity 

toward the construction of the new dwellings or the rehabilitation of existing dwellings; 

‘‘(2) assistance provided under this section for land acquisition and infrastructure development results in the development of not less than 4,000 new or rehabilitated dwellings; 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘(d) USE.— 

‘‘(1) PURPOSE.—Amounts from grants made under this section, including any recaptured amounts, shall be used only for 

eligible expenses in connection with developing new decent, 

safe, and sanitary nonluxury dwellings or rehabilitating existing dwellings to make them decent, safe and sanitary in the 

United States for families and persons who otherwise would be 

unable to afford to purchase a dwelling. 

‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE EXPENSES.* * * 

‘‘(A) LAND ACQUISITION.* * * 

‘‘(B) INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT.—Installing, extending, constructing, rehabilitating, or otherwise improving utilities and other infrastructure. 

‘‘(C) PLANNING, ADMINISTRATION, AND MANAGEMENT.— Planning, administration, and management of grant programs and activities, provided that such expenses do not 

exceed 20 percent of any grant made under this section. 

‘‘(i) GRANT AGREEMENT.—A grant under this section shall be 

made only pursuant to a grant agreement entered into by the Sec-
171 

retary and the organization or consortia receiving the grant, which 

shall— 

‘‘(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘(5) provide that the Secretary shall recapture any grant 

amounts provided to the organization or consortia that are not 

used within ø24¿ 36 months after such amounts are first disbursed to the organization or consortia, øexcept that such period shall be 36 months in the case of grant amounts from 

amounts made available for fiscal year 1996 to carry out this 

section, and in the case of a [sic] grant amounts provided to a 

local affiliate of the organization or consortia that is developing 

five or more dwellings in connection with such grant amounts¿; 

and 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘(j) FULFILLMENT OF GRANT AGREEMENT.— 

‘‘(1) REDISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—If the Secretary determines that an organization or consortia awarded a grant under 

this section has not, within ø24¿ 36 months after grant 

amounts are first made available to the organization or consortia ø(or, in the case of grant amounts from amounts made 

available for fiscal year 1996 to carry out this section and 

grant amounts provided to a local affiliate of the organization 

or consortia that is developing five or more dwellings in connection with such grant amounts, within 36 months)¿, substantially fulfilled the obligations under the grant agreement, including development of the appropriate number of dwellings 

under the agreement, the Secretary shall use any such 

undisbursed amounts remaining from such grant for other 

grants in accordance with this section. 

‘‘(2) DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION AND CONVEYANCE.—The 

Secretary shall establish a deadline (which may be extended for 

good cause as determined by the Secretary) by which time all 

units that have been assisted with grant funds under this section must be completed and conveyed. 

* * * * * * * 

ø‘‘(q) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall issue any final regulations necessary to carry out this section not later than 30 days 

after the date of the enactment of this Act [Mar. 28, 1996]. The regulations shall take effect upon issuance and may not exceed, in 

length, 5 full pages in the Federal Register.’’¿ 

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION 

CHAPTER 51—TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL

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

(a) PLANNING GRANTS.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(i) ANNUAL REGISTRATION FEE ACCOUNT AND ITS USES.—* * * 
172 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) to pay administrative costs of carrying out this section 

and sections 5108(g)(2) and 5115 of this title, except that not 

more than ø2 percent¿ 4 percent of the amounts made available from the account in a fiscal year may be used to pay those 

costs. 

CHAPTER 471—AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

SUBCHAPTER I—AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT

§ 47109. United States Government’s share of project costs 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) GRANDFATHER RULE.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(2) LIMITATION.—The Government’s share of allowable 

project costs determined under this subsection shall not exceed 

the lesser of 93.75 percent or the highest percentage Government share applicable to any project in any State under subsection (b), except that at a non-hub airport located in a State 

as set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection that is within 

15 miles of another State as set forth in paragraph (1) of this 

subsection, the Government’s share shall be an average of the 

Government share applicable to any project in each of the 

States. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 47124. Agreements for State and local operation of airport 

facilities 

(a) GOVERNMENT RELIEF FROM LIABILITY.— * * * 

(b) AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL CONTRACT PROGRAM.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) CONTRACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER PROGRAM.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) COSTS EXCEEDING BENEFITS.—If the costs of operating an air traffic tower under the program exceed the 

benefits, the airport sponsor or State or local government 

having jurisdiction over the airport shall pay the portion 

of the costs that exceed such øbenefit.¿ benefit, with the 

maximum allowable local cost share capped at 20 percent. 
173 

CONSOLIDATED AND FURTHER CONTINUING 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012, PUBLIC LAW 112–55 

DIVISION C—TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION

RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION

To conduct a demonstration designed to preserve and improve 

public housing and certain other multifamily housing through the 

voluntary conversion of properties with assistance under section 9 

of the United States Housing Act of 1937, (hereinafter, ‘‘the Act’’), 

or the moderate rehabilitation program under section 8(e)(2) of the 

Act (øexcept for funds allocated under such section for single room 

occupancy dwellings as authorized by title IV of the McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act)¿, to properties with assistance 

under a project-based subsidy contract under section 8 of the Act, 

which shall be eligible for renewal under section 524 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997, or 

assistance under section 8(o)(13) of the Act, the Secretary may 

transfer amounts provided through contracts under section 8(e)(2) 

of the Act or under the headings ‘‘Public Housing Capital Fund’’ 

and ‘‘Public Housing Operating Fund’’ to the headings ‘‘TenantBased Rental Assistance’’ or ‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’: 

Provided, That the initial long-term contract under which converted assistance is made available may allow for rental adjustments only by an operating cost factor established by the Secretary, and shall be subject to the availability of appropriations for 

each year of such term: Provided further, That project applications 

may be received under this demonstration until September 30, 

ø2015¿ 2018: Provided further, That any increase in cost for ‘‘Tenant-Based Rental Assistance’’ or ‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’ 

associated with such conversion in excess of amounts made available under this heading shall be equal to amounts transferred from 

‘‘Public Housing Capital Fund’’ and ‘‘Public Housing Operating 

Fund’’ or other account from which it was transferred: Provided 

further, That not more than ø60,000185,000 units currently receiving assistance under section 9 or section 8(e)(2) of the Act shall be 

converted under the authority provided under this heading: Provided further, That tenants of such properties with assistance converted from assistance under section 9 shall, at a minimum, maintain the same rights under such conversion as those provided 

under sections 6 and 9 of the Act: Provided further, That the Secretary shall select properties from applications for conversion as 

part of this demonstration through a competitive process: Provided 

further, That in establishing criteria for such competition, the Secretary shall seek to demonstrate the feasibility of this conversion 

model to recapitalize and operate public housing properties (1) in 

different markets and geographic areas, (2) within portfolios man-
174 

aged by public housing agencies of varying sizes, and (3) by 

leveraging other sources of funding to recapitalize properties: Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide an opportunity for 

public comment on draft eligibility and selection criteria and procedures that will apply to the selection of properties that will participate in the demonstration: Provided further, That the Secretary 

shall provide an opportunity for comment from residents of properties to be proposed for participation in the demonstration to the 

owners or public housing agencies responsible for such properties: 

Provided further, That the Secretary may waive or specify alternative requirements for (except for requirements related to fair 

housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment) 

any provision of section 8(o)(13) or any provision that governs the 

use of assistance from which a property is converted under the 

demonstration or funds made available under the headings of ‘‘Public Housing Capital Fund’’, ‘‘Public Housing Operating Fund’’, and 

‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’, under this Act or any prior Act 

or any Act enacted during the period of conversion of assistance 

under the demonstration for properties with assistance converted 

under the demonstration, upon a finding by the Secretary that any 

such waivers or alternative requirements are necessary for the effective conversion of assistance under the demonstration: Provided 

further, That the Secretary shall publish by notice in the Federal 

Register any waivers or alternative requirements pursuant to the 

previous proviso no later than 10 days before the effective date of 

such notice: Provided further, That the demonstration may proceed 

after the Secretary publishes notice of its terms in the Federal Register: Provided further, That notwithstanding sections 3 and 16 of 

the Act, the conversion of assistance under the demonstration shall 

not be the basis for re-screening or termination of assistance or 

eviction of any tenant family in a property participating in the 

demonstration, and such a family shall not be considered a new admission for any purpose, including compliance with income targeting requirements: Provided further, That in the case of a property with assistance converted under the demonstration from assistance under section 9 of the Act, section 18 of the Act shall not 

apply to a property converting assistance under the demonstration 

for all or substantially all of its units, the Secretary shall require 

ownership or control of assisted units by a public or nonprofit entity except as determined by the Secretary to be necessary pursuant 

to foreclosure, bankruptcy, or termination and transfer of assistance for material violations or substantial default, in which case 

the priority for ownership or control shall be provided to a capable 

public entity, then a capable entity, as determined by the Secretary, shall require long-term renewable use and affordability restrictions for assisted units, and may allow ownership to be transferred to a for-profit entity to facilitate the use of tax credits only 

if the public housing agency preserves its interest in the property 

in a manner approved by the Secretary, and upon expiration of the 

initial contract and each renewal contract, the Secretary shall offer 

and the owner of the property shall accept renewal of the contract 

subject to the terms and conditions applicable at the time of renewal and the availability of appropriations each year of such renewal: Provided further, That the Secretary may permit transfer of 
175 

assistance at or after conversion under the demonstration to replacement units subject to the requirements in the previous proviso: Provided further, That the Secretary may establish the requirements for converted assistance under the demonstration 

through contracts, use agreements, regulations, or other means: 

Provided further, That the Secretary shall assess and publish findings regarding the impact of the conversion of assistance under the 

demonstration on the preservation and improvement of public 

housing, the amount of private sector leveraging as a result of such 

conversion, and the effect of such conversion on tenants: Provided 

further, That for fiscal years 2012 through øDecember 31, 2014¿ 

2016, owners of properties assisted under section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, section 236(f)(2) of the 

National Housing Act, or section 8(e)(2) (except for funds allocated 

under such section for single room occupancy dwellings as authorized by title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act) 

of the United States Housing Act of 1937, for which an event after 

October 1, 2006 has caused or results in the termination of rental 

assistance or affordability restrictions and the issuance of tenant 

protection vouchers under section 8(o) of the Act, shall be eligible, 

subject to requirements established by the Secretary, including but 

not limited to tenant consultation procedures øand agreement of 

the administering public housing agency¿, for conversion of assistance available for such vouchers to assistance under a long-term 

project-based subsidy contract under section 8 of the Act, which 

shall have a term of no less than 20 years, with rent adjustments 

only by an operating cost factor established by the Secretary, which 

shall be eligible for renewal under section 524 of the Multifamily 

Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 

1437f note), or, subject to agreement of the administering public 

housing agency, to assistance under section 8(o)(13) of the Act, to 

which the limitation under subsection (B) of section 8(o)(13) of the 

Act shall not apply and for which the Secretary of Housing and 

Urban Development may waive or alter the provisions of subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 8(o)(13) of the Act: Provided further, 

That amounts made available under the heading ‘‘Rental Housing 

Assistance’’ during the period of conversion under the previous proviso, which may extend beyond fiscal year 2016 as necessary to 

allow processing of all timely applications, shall be available for 

project-based subsidy contracts entered into pursuant to the previous proviso: Provided further, That amounts, including contract 

authority, recaptured from contracts following a conversion under 

the previous two provisos are hereby rescinded and an amount of 

additional new budget authority, equivalent to the amount rescinded is hereby appropriated, to remain available until expended 

for such conversions: Provided further, That the Secretary may 

transfer amounts made available under the heading ‘‘Rental Housing Assistance’’, amounts made available for tenant protection 

vouchers under the heading ‘‘Tenant-Based Rental Assistance’’ and 

specifically associated with any such conversions, and amounts 

made available under the previous proviso as needed to the account 

under the ‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’ heading to facilitate 

conversion under the three previous provisos and any increase in 

cost for ‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’ associated with such con-
176 

version shall be equal to amounts so transferred: Provided further, 

That øwith respect to the previous proviso¿ with respect to the previous four provisos, the Comptroller General of the United States 

shall conduct a study of the long-term øimpact of the previous proviso¿ impact of the fiscal year 2012 and 2013 conversion of tenant 

protection vouchers to assistance under section 8(o)(13) of the Act on 

the ratio of tenant-based vouchers to project-based vouchers. 

* * * * * * * 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

SEC. 203. (a) Notwithstanding section 854(c)(1)(A) of the AIDS 

Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)(1)(A)), from any 

amounts made available under this title for øfiscal year 2012¿ fiscal year 2015 that are allocated under such section, the Secretary 

of Housing and Urban Development shall allocate and make a 

grant, in the amount determined under subsection (b), for any 

State that— 

(1) received an allocation in a prior fiscal year under 

clause (ii) of such section; and 

(2) is not otherwise eligible for an allocation for øfiscal 

year 2012¿ fiscal year 2015 under such clause (ii) because the 

areas in the State outside of the metropolitan statistical areas 

that qualify under clause (i) in fiscal year 2011 do not have the 

number of cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome 

(AIDS) required under such clause. 

(b) The amount of the allocation and grant for any State described in subsection (a) shall be an amount based on the cumulative number of AIDS cases in the areas of that State that are outside of metropolitan statistical areas that qualify under clause (i) 

of such section 854(c)(1)(A) in øfiscal year 2012¿ fiscal year 2015 

, in proportion to AIDS cases among cities and States that qualify 

under clauses (i) and (ii) of such section and States deemed eligible 

under subsection (a). 

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the amount allocated for øfiscal year 2012¿ fiscal year 2015 under section 854(c) 

of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)), to the 

city of New York, New York, on behalf of the New York-WayneWhite Plains, New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Division (hereafter ‘‘metropolitan division’’) of the New York-Newark-Edison, 

NY–NJ–PA Metropolitan Statistical Area, shall be adjusted by the 

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development by: 

(1) allocating to the city of Jersey City, New Jersey, the 

proportion of the metropolitan area’s or division’s amount that 

is based on the number of cases of AIDS reported in the portion of the metropolitan area or division that is located in Hudson County, New Jersey, and adjusting for the proportion of 

the metropolitan division’s high-incidence bonus if this area in 

New Jersey also has a higher than average per capita incidence of AIDS; and 

(2) allocating to the city of Paterson, New Jersey, the proportion of the metropolitan area’s or division’s amount that is 

based on the number of cases of AIDS reported in the portion 
177 

of the metropolitan area or division that is located in Bergen 

County and Passaic County, New Jersey, and adjusting for the 

proportion of the metropolitan division’s high incidence bonus 

if this area in New Jersey also has a higher than average per 

capita incidence of AIDS. The recipient cities shall use 

amounts allocated under this subsection to carry out eligible 

activities under section 855 of the AIDS Housing Opportunity 

Act (42 U.S.C. 12904) in their respective portions of the metropolitan division that is located in New Jersey. 

(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the amount allocated for øfiscal year 2012¿ fiscal year 2015 under section 854(c) 

of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)) to areas 

with a higher than average per capita incidence of AIDS, shall be 

adjusted by the Secretary on the basis of area incidence reported 

over a 3-year period. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 209. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

amount allocated for øfiscal year 2012¿ fiscal year 2015 under section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 

12903(c)), to the city of Wilmington, Delaware, on behalf of the Wilmington, Delaware-Maryland-New Jersey Metropolitan Division 

(hereafter ‘‘metropolitan division’’), shall be adjusted by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development by allocating to the 

State of New Jersey the proportion of the metropolitan division’s 

amount that is based on the number of cases of AIDS reported in 

the portion of the metropolitan division that is located in New Jersey, and adjusting for the proportion of the metropolitan division’s 

high incidence bonus if this area in New Jersey also has a higher 

than average per capita incidence of AIDS. The State of New Jersey shall use amounts allocated to the State under this subsection 

to carry out eligible activities under section 855 of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12904) in the portion of the metropolitan division that is located in New Jersey. 

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 

of Housing and Urban Development shall allocate to Wake County, 

North Carolina, the amounts that otherwise would be allocated for 

øfiscal year 2012¿ fiscal year 2015 under section 854(c) of the AIDS 

Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)) to the city of Raleigh, North Carolina, on behalf of the Raleigh-Cary North Carolina Metropolitan Statistical Area. Any amounts allocated to Wake 

County shall be used to carry out eligible activities under section 

855 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12904) within such metropolitan statistical area. 

(c) Notwithstanding section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)), the Secretary of Housing and 

Urban Development may adjust the allocation of the amounts that 

otherwise would be allocated for øfiscal year 2012¿ fiscal year 2015 

under section 854(c) of such Act, upon the written request of an applicant, in conjunction with the State(s), for a formula allocation on 

behalf of a metropolitan statistical area, to designate the State or 

States in which the metropolitan statistical area is located as the 

eligible grantee(s) of the allocation. In the case that a metropolitan 

statistical area involves more than one State, such amounts allocated to each State shall be in proportion to the number of cases 
178 

of AIDS reported in the portion of the metropolitan statistical area 

located in that State. Any amounts allocated to a State under this 

section shall be used to carry out eligible activities within the portion of the metropolitan statistical area located in that State. 

FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012, 

PUBLIC LAW 112–95 

TITLE IX—FEDERAL AVIATION 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

SEC. 916. REAUTHORIZATION OF CENTER OF EXCELLENCE IN APPLIED RESEARCH AND TRAINING IN THE USE OF øADVANCED MATERIALS IN TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT¿ JOINT 

ADVANCED MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES. 

SECTION 708(B) OF THE VISION 100.—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (49 U.S.C. 44504 note) is amended by striking 

‘‘for fiscal year 2004’’ and inserting ‘‘for each of fiscal years 2012 

through 2015’’. 

* * * * * * * 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

in bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

in bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with the subcommittee 

allocation for 2015: Subcommittee on Transportation 

and Housing and Urban Development, and Related 

Agencies: 

Mandatory .................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................

Discretionary ................................................................ 54,439 54,439 119,834 1 119,379 

Security ............................................................... 186 186 NA NA 

Nonsecurity ......................................................... 54,253 54,253 NA NA 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2015 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 2 39,239 

2016 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 33,817 

2017 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 14,082 

2018 ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 6,041 

2019 and future years ................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... 7,464 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2015 ................................................................................. NA 32,441 NA 30,215 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
179 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2014 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2014 appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 107,000 109,916 108,000 ∂1,000 ¥1,916 

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

Research and Technology ........................................................................................................................................... 14,765 14,625 13,500 ¥1,265 ¥1,125 National Infrastructure Investments .......................................................................................................................... 600,000 ............................ 550,000 ¥50,000 ∂550,000 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. ............................ (1,250,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥1,250,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... ............................ (1,250,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥1,250,000 ) 

Infrastructure Permitting Center ................................................................................................................................ ............................ 8,000 ............................ ............................ ¥8,000 Financial Management Capital .................................................................................................................................. 7,000 5,000 5,000 ¥2,000 ............................Cyber Security Initiatives ........................................................................................................................................... 4,455 5,000 5,000 ∂545 ............................Office of Civil Rights ................................................................................................................................................. 9,551 9,600 9,600 ∂49 ............................Transportation Planning, Research, and Development .............................................................................................. 7,000 8,000 6,000 ¥1,000 ¥2,000 

Rescission of unobligated balances ................................................................................................................. ¥2,750 ............................ ............................ ∂2,750 ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 4,250 8,000 6,000 ∂1,750 ¥2,000 

Working Capital Fund ................................................................................................................................................. (178,000 ) ............................ (182,000 ) (∂4,000 ) (∂182,000 ) Minority Business Resource Center Program ............................................................................................................. 925 1,013 925 ............................ ¥88 
180 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2014 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2014 appropriation Budget estimate 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (18,367 ) (18,367 ) (18,367 ) ............................ ............................

Minority Business Outreach ....................................................................................................................................... 3,088 3,099 3,099 ∂11 ............................Safe Transport of Oil .................................................................................................................................................. ............................ 40,000 ............................ ............................ ¥40,000 Payments to Air Carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) ........................................................................................... 149,000 155,000 155,000 ∂6,000 ............................

Total, Office of the Secretary ....................................................................................................................... 900,034 359,253 856,124 ¥43,910 ∂496,871 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Operations .................................................................................................................................................................. 9,651,422 9,750,000 9,750,000 ∂98,578 ............................

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

Facilities and Equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) .......................................................................................... 2,600,000 2,603,700 2,473,700 ¥126,300 ¥130,000 Research, Engineering, and Development (Airport & Airway Trust Fund .................................................................. 158,792 156,750 156,750 ¥2,042 ............................

Rescission of unobligated balances ................................................................................................................. ¥26,184 ............................ ............................ ∂26,184 ............................

Grants-in-Aid for Airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ....................... (3,200,000 ) (3,200,000 ) (3,200,000 ) ............................ ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... (3,350,000 ) (2,900,000 ) (3,480,000 ) (∂130,000 ) (∂580,000 ) 

Administration ................................................................................................................................................... (106,600 ) (107,100 ) (107,100 ) (∂500 ) ............................Airport cooperative research program ............................................................................................................... (15,000 ) (15,000 ) (15,000 ) ............................ ............................Airport technology research ............................................................................................................................... (29,500 ) (29,750 ) (29,750 ) (∂250 ) ............................Small community air service development program ........................................................................................ (5,000 ) ............................ (8,000 ) (∂3,000 ) (∂8,000 ) FAA facilities and equipment located at airports ............................................................................................ ............................ ............................ (130,000 ) (∂130,000 ) (∂130,000 ) Rescission of contract authority ....................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥256,000 ¥256,300 ¥256,300 ¥300 Pop-up contract authority ................................................................................................................................. ............................ 126,000 256,300 ∂256,300 ∂130,300 

Total, Federal Aviation Administration ......................................................................................................... 12,384,030 12,380,450 12,380,450 ¥3,580 ............................
181 

Limitations on obligations ....................................................................................................................... (3,350,000 ) (2,900,000 ) (3,480,000 ) (∂130,000 ) (∂580,000 ) 

Total budgetary resources ................................................................................................................... (15,734,030 ) (15,280,450 ) (15,860,450 ) (∂126,420 ) (∂580,000 ) 

Administrative Provision 

War Risk Insurance Program Extension ..................................................................................................................... ¥100,000 ............................ ............................ ∂100,000 ............................

Federal Highway Administration 

Limitation on Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................................................... (416,100 ) (439,000 ) (426,100 ) (∂10,000 ) (¥12,900 ) Federal-Aid Highways (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (40,995,000 ) (48,062,248 ) (40,995,000 ) ............................ (¥7,067,248 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... (40,256,000 ) (47,323,248 ) (40,256,000 ) ............................ (¥7,067,248 ) 

Fixing and Accelerating Surface Transportation (Liquidation of contract authorization) ................................ ............................ (500,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥500,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... ............................ (500,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥500,000 ) 

(Exempt contract authority) .............................................................................................................................. (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Federal Highway Administration ......................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Limitations on obligations ................................................................................................................... (40,256,000 ) (47,823,248 ) (40,256,000 ) ............................ (¥7,567,248 ) Exempt contract authority ................................................................................................................... (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................... (40,995,000 ) (48,562,248 ) (40,995,000 ) ............................ (¥7,567,248 ) 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs (Highway Trust Fund)(liquidation of contract authorization) ........ (259,000 ) (315,770 ) (271,000 ) (∂12,000 ) (¥44,770 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (259,000 ) (315,770 ) (271,000 ) (∂12,000 ) (¥44,770 ) 

National Motor Carrier Safety Program (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation of contract authorization) ................... (13,000 ) ............................ (8,300 ) (¥4,700 ) (∂8,300 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (13,000 ) ............................ (8,300 ) (¥4,700 ) (∂8,300 ) 

Motor Carrier Safety Grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) .................................... (313,000 ) (352,753 ) (313,000 ) ............................ (¥39,753 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (313,000 ) (352,753 ) (313,000 ) ............................ (¥39,753 ) 

Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ...................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Limitations on obligations ................................................................................................................... (585,000 ) (668,523 ) (592,300 ) (∂7,300 ) (¥76,223 ) 

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................... (585,000 ) (668,523 ) (592,300 ) (∂7,300 ) (¥76,223 ) 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Operations and Research ........................................................................................................................................... 134,000 ............................ 134,500 ∂500 ∂134,500 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. ............................ (122,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥122,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... ............................ (122,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥122,000 ) 
182 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2014 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2014 appropriation Budget estimate 

Operations and Research Vehicle Safety (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ................ (123,500 ) (152,000 ) (138,500 ) (∂15,000 ) (¥13,500 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (123,500 ) (152,000 ) (138,500 ) (∂15,000 ) (¥13,500 ) 

Subtotal, Operations and Research .............................................................................................................. 257,500 274,000 273,000 ∂15,500 ¥1,000 

Highway Traffic Safety Grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ................................ (561,500 ) (577,000 ) (561,500 ) ............................ (¥15,500 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (561,500 ) (577,000 ) (561,500 ) ............................ (¥15,500 ) 

Highway safety programs (23 USC 402) ................................................................................................. (235,000 ) (241,146 ) (235,000 ) ............................ (¥6,146 ) National priority safety programs (23 USC 405) ..................................................................................... (272,000 ) (278,705 ) (272,000 ) ............................ (¥6,705 ) High visibility enforcement ...................................................................................................................... (29,000 ) (29,000 ) (29,000 ) ............................ ............................Administrative expenses ........................................................................................................................... (25,500 ) (28,149 ) (25,500 ) ............................ (¥2,649 ) 

Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ....................................................................... 134,000 ............................ 134,500 ∂500 ∂134,500 

Limitations on obligations .......................................................................................................... (685,000 ) (851,000 ) (700,000 ) (∂15,000 ) (¥151,000 ) 

Total budgetary resources ...................................................................................................... (819,000 ) (851,000 ) (834,500 ) (∂15,500 ) (¥16,500 ) 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety and Operations ................................................................................................................................................ 184,500 185,250 191,250 ∂6,750 ∂6,000 Railroad Research and Development ......................................................................................................................... 35,250 35,100 40,730 ∂5,480 ∂5,630 Railroad Grants (Legislative proposal): 

Current passenger rail service (HTF): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) .................................................................................................... ............................ (2,450,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥2,450,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) .............................................................................................................. ............................ (2,450,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥2,450,000 ) 

Rail service improvement program (HTF): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) .................................................................................................... ............................ (2,325,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥2,325,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) .............................................................................................................. ............................ (2,325,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥2,325,000 ) 

Northeast Corridor Improvement Program (rescission) .............................................................................................. ¥4,419 ............................ ............................ ∂4,419 ............................Next Generation High-Speed Rail (rescission) ........................................................................................................... ¥1,973 ............................ ............................ ∂1,973 ............................
183 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation: 

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation .................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 1,390,000 ∂1,390,000 ∂1,390,000 Operating Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ................................................................. 340,000 ............................ ............................ ¥340,000 ............................Capital and Debt Service Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ........................................ 1,050,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,050,000 ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,390,000 ............................ 1,390,000 ............................ ∂1,390,000 Total, Federal Railroad Administration ......................................................................................................... 1,603,358 220,350 1,621,980 ∂18,622 ∂1,401,630 

Federal Transit Administration 

Administrative Expenses ............................................................................................................................................ 105,933 ............................ 110,500 ∂4,567 ∂110,500 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. ............................ (114,400 ) ............................ ............................ (¥114,400 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... ............................ (114,400 ) ............................ ............................ (¥114,400 ) 

Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program ..................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. ............................ (25,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥25,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... ............................ (25,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥25,000 ) 

Transit Formula Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account (liquidation of contract authorization) ............... (9,500,000 ) (13,800,000 ) (9,500,000 ) ............................ (¥4,300,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (8,595,000 ) (13,800,000 ) (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 ) 

Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Program .......................................................................... 40,000 ............................ 30,000 ¥10,000 ∂30,000 Transit Cooperative Research .................................................................................................................................... 3,000 ............................ 3,000 ............................ ∂3,000 Technical Assistance and Standards Development ................................................................................................... 3,000 ............................ 5,000 ∂2,000 ∂5,000 Human Resources and Training ................................................................................................................................. 2,000 ............................ 500 ¥1,500 ∂500 Technical Assistance and Training ............................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Transit Research and Training .................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. ............................ (60,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥60,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... ............................ (60,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥60,000 ) 

Rapid-Growth Area Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Program (liquidation of contract authorization) ........................... ............................ (500,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥500,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ........................................................................................................................... ............................ (500,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥500,000 ) 

Capital Investment Grants ......................................................................................................................................... 1,942,938 ............................ 2,161,000 ∂218,062 ∂2,161,000 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. ............................ (2,500,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥2,500,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... ............................ (2,500,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥2,500,000 ) 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 

Capital and Preventive Maintenance ......................................................................................................................... 150,000 150,000 150,000 ............................ ............................
184 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2014 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2014 appropriation Budget estimate 

Administrative Provisions 

Rescission (Sec. 169) ................................................................................................................................................. ¥96,228 ............................ ............................ ∂96,228 ............................

Total, Federal Transit Administration ........................................................................................................... 2,150,643 150,000 2,460,000 ∂309,357 ∂2,310,000 

Limitations on obligations ................................................................................................................... (8,595,000 ) (17,499,400 ) (8,595,000 ) ............................ (¥8,904,400 ) 

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................... (10,745,643 ) (17,649,400 ) (11,055,000 ) (∂309,357 ) (¥6,594,400 ) 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 

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

Maritime Administration 

Maritime Security Program ......................................................................................................................................... 186,000 211,000 186,000 ............................ ¥25,000 Operations and Training ............................................................................................................................................ 148,003 148,400 149,900 ∂1,897 ∂1,500 Ready Reserve Force (by transfer) ............................................................................................................................. ............................ (291,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥291,000 ) Ship Disposal ............................................................................................................................................................. 4,800 4,800 4,800 ............................ ............................Assistance to Small Shipyards .................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account: 

Administrative expenses .................................................................................................................................... 3,500 3,100 3,100 ¥400 ............................Guaranteed loans subsidy ................................................................................................................................. 35,000 ............................ 4,000 ¥31,000 ∂4,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 38,500 3,100 7,100 ¥31,400 ∂4,000 Total, Maritime Administration ..................................................................................................................... 377,303 367,300 347,800 ¥29,503 ¥19,500 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Operational Expenses: 

General Fund ..................................................................................................................................................... 21,015 22,225 22,225 ∂1,210 ............................Pipeline Safety Fund ......................................................................................................................................... 639 ............................ ............................ ¥639 ............................
185 

Pipeline Safety Information grants to Communities ........................................................................................ (1,500 ) (1,500 ) (1,500 ) ............................ ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 21,654 22,225 22,225 ∂571 ............................

Hazardous Materials Safety: 

General Fund ..................................................................................................................................................... 45,000 52,000 52,000 ∂7,000 ............................Special Permit and Approval Fees .................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥6,000 ............................ ............................ ∂6,000 

Pipeline Safety: 

Pipeline Safety Fund ......................................................................................................................................... 98,514 136,500 136,500 ∂37,986 ............................Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund ............................................................................................................................. 18,573 19,500 19,500 ∂927 ............................Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund ................................................................................................................. 2,000 2,000 2,000 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 119,087 158,000 158,000 ∂38,913 ............................Subtotal, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ............................................................ 185,741 226,225 232,225 ∂46,484 ∂6,000 

Pipeline Safety User Fees ........................................................................................................................................... ¥99,153 ¥136,500 ¥136,500 ¥37,347 ............................Pipeline Safety Design Review Fee ............................................................................................................................ ¥2,000 ¥2,000 ¥2,000 ............................ ............................Emergency Preparedness Grants: 

Limitation on emergency preparedness fund ................................................................................................... (28,318 ) (28,318 ) (28,318 ) ............................ ............................

(Emergency preparedness fund) .............................................................................................................. (188 ) (188 ) (188 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ........................................................ 84,588 87,725 93,725 ∂9,137 ∂6,000 

Office of Inspector General 

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

Surface Transportation Board 

Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 31,000 31,500 31,500 ∂500 ............................

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ............................ ............................

Total, Surface Transportation Board ............................................................................................................ 29,750 30,250 30,250 ∂500 ............................Total, title I, Department of Transportation ................................................................................................. 17,680,311 13,713,051 18,042,552 ∂362,241 ∂4,329,501 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (17,813,115 ) (13,976,301 ) (18,300,102 ) (∂486,987 ) (∂4,323,801 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥131,554 ) ............................ ............................ (∂131,554 ) ............................Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ ............................ (¥256,000 ) (¥256,300 ) (¥256,300 ) (¥300 ) Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................... (¥1,250 ) (¥7,250 ) (¥1,250 ) ............................ (∂6,000 ) 

Limitations on obligations ............................................................................................................................ (53,471,000 ) (75,767,171 ) (53,623,300 ) (∂152,300 ) (¥22,143,871 ) (By transfer) .................................................................................................................................................. ............................ (291,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥291,000 ) 
186 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2014 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2014 appropriation Budget estimate 

Total budgetary resources ................................................................................................................... (71,151,311 ) (89,480,222 ) (71,665,852 ) (∂514,541 ) (¥17,814,370 ) 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Management and Administration 

Executive Offices ........................................................................................................................................................ 14,500 15,234 14,700 ∂200 ¥534 Administration Support Offices .................................................................................................................................. 506,000 530,783 519,867 ∂13,867 ¥10,916 Program Office Salaries and Expenses: 

Public and Indian Housing ............................................................................................................................... 205,000 213,664 205,525 ∂525 ¥8,139 Community Planning and Development ............................................................................................................ 102,000 110,535 103,300 ∂1,300 ¥7,235 Housing .............................................................................................................................................................. 381,500 386,677 386,677 ∂5,177 ............................Policy Development and Research .................................................................................................................... 22,000 23,248 22,300 ∂300 ¥948 Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ................................................................................................................ 69,000 77,629 69,700 ∂700 ¥7,929 Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes .......................................................................................... 7,000 7,879 7,075 ∂75 ¥804 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 786,500 819,632 794,577 ∂8,077 ¥25,055 Total, Management and Administration ....................................................................................................... 1,307,000 1,365,649 1,329,144 ∂22,144 ¥36,505 

Public and Indian Housing 

Tenant-based Rental Assistance: 

Renewals ........................................................................................................................................................... 17,365,527 18,006,550 17,719,000 ∂353,473 ¥287,550 Tenant protection vouchers ............................................................................................................................... 130,000 150,000 130,000 ............................ ¥20,000 Administrative fees ........................................................................................................................................... 1,500,000 1,705,000 1,555,000 ∂55,000 ¥150,000 Veterans affairs supportive housing ................................................................................................................. 75,000 75,000 75,000 ............................ ............................Sec. 811 mainstream voucher renewals ........................................................................................................... 106,691 108,450 83,160 ¥23,531 ¥25,290 

Subtotal (available this fiscal year) ............................................................................................................ 19,177,218 20,045,000 19,562,160 ∂384,942 ¥482,840 

Advance appropriations ..................................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 ............................ ............................
187 

Less appropriations from prior year advances ................................................................................................. ¥4,000,000 ¥4,000,000 ¥4,000,000 ............................ ............................

Total, Tenant-based Rental Assistance appropriated in this bill ............................................................... 19,177,218 20,045,000 19,562,160 ∂384,942 ¥482,840 

Rental Assistance Demonstration .............................................................................................................................. ............................ 10,000 10,000 ∂10,000 ............................Public Housing Capital Fund ..................................................................................................................................... 1,875,000 1,925,000 1,900,000 ∂25,000 ¥25,000 Drug Elimination (rescission) ..................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥1,101 ¥1,101 ¥1,101 Public Housing Operating Fund ................................................................................................................................. 4,400,000 4,600,000 4,475,000 ∂75,000 ¥125,000 Choice Neighborhoods ................................................................................................................................................ 90,000 120,000 90,000 ............................ ¥30,000 Family Self-Sufficiency ............................................................................................................................................... 75,000 75,000 75,000 ............................ ............................Native American Housing Block Grants ..................................................................................................................... 650,000 650,000 650,000 ............................ ............................Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant ....................................................................................................................... 10,000 13,000 10,000 ............................ ¥3,000 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account .......................................................................................... 6,000 8,000 6,000 ............................ ¥2,000 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (1,818,000 ) (1,200,000 ) (714,290 ) (¥1,103,710 ) (¥485,710 ) 

Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account ........................................................................................ 100 ............................ 100 ............................ ∂100 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (18,868 ) ............................ (16,130 ) (¥2,738 ) (∂16,130 ) 

Total, Public and Indian Housing ................................................................................................................. 26,283,318 27,446,000 26,777,159 ∂493,841 ¥668,841 

Community Planning and Development 

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS ........................................................................................................... 330,000 332,000 330,000 ............................ ¥2,000 Community Development Fund: 

CDBG formula .................................................................................................................................................... 3,030,000 2,800,000 3,020,000 ¥10,000 ∂220,000 Indian CDBG ...................................................................................................................................................... 70,000 70,000 70,000 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 3,100,000 2,870,000 3,090,000 ¥10,000 ∂220,000 

Rural Housing and Economic Development (rescission) ........................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥2,300 ¥2,300 ¥2,300 Youth Build (rescission) ............................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ¥460 ¥460 ¥460 Community Development Loan Guarantees (Section 108): 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (150,000 ) (500,000 ) (500,000 ) (∂350,000 ) ............................Credit subsidy ................................................................................................................................................... 3,000 ............................ ............................ ¥3,000 ............................

HOME Investment Partnerships Program ................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 950,000 950,000 ¥50,000 ............................Self-help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program .................................................................................. 50,000 ............................ 50,000 ............................ ∂50,000 Capacity Building ....................................................................................................................................................... ............................ 20,000 ............................ ............................ ¥20,000 Brownsfields (rescission) ........................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥2,913 ¥2,913 ¥2,913 Homeless Assistance Grants ...................................................................................................................................... 2,105,000 2,406,400 2,145,000 ∂40,000 ¥261,400 
188 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2014 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2014 appropriation Budget estimate 

Total, Community Planning and Development ............................................................................................. 6,588,000 6,578,400 6,559,327 ¥28,673 ¥19,073 

Housing Programs 

Project-based Rental Assistance: 

Renewals ........................................................................................................................................................... 9,651,628 9,536,000 9,536,000 ¥115,628 ............................Contract administrators .................................................................................................................................... 265,000 210,000 210,000 ¥55,000 ............................

Subtotal (available this fiscal year) ............................................................................................................ 9,916,628 9,746,000 9,746,000 ¥170,628 ............................

Advance appropriations ..................................................................................................................................... 400,000 400,000 400,000 ............................ ............................Less appropriations from prior year advances ................................................................................................. ¥400,000 ¥400,000 ¥400,000 ............................ ............................

Total, Project-based Rental Assistance appropriated in this bill ............................................................... 9,916,628 9,746,000 9,746,000 ¥170,628 ............................

Housing for the Elderly .............................................................................................................................................. 383,500 440,000 420,000 ∂36,500 ¥20,000 Housing for Persons with Disabilities ........................................................................................................................ 126,000 160,000 135,000 ∂9,000 ¥25,000 Housing Counseling Assistance ................................................................................................................................. 45,000 60,000 49,000 ∂4,000 ¥11,000 Rental Housing Assistance ........................................................................................................................................ 21,000 28,000 28,000 ∂7,000 ............................Rent Supplement (rescission) .................................................................................................................................... ¥3,500 ............................ ............................ ∂3,500 ............................Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund .................................................................................................................... 7,530 10,000 10,000 ∂2,470 ............................

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥6,530 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 ¥3,470 ............................

Total, Housing Programs .............................................................................................................................. 10,489,628 10,434,000 10,378,000 ¥111,628 ¥56,000 

Federal Housing Administration 

Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (400,000,000 ) (400,000,000 ) (400,000,000 ) ............................ ............................(Limitation on direct loans) .............................................................................................................................. (20,000 ) (20,000 ) (20,000 ) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥10,841,000 ¥7,951,000 ¥7,951,000 ∂2,890,000 ............................Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM) ................................................................................................................ ¥57,000 ¥36,000 ¥36,000 ∂21,000 ............................
189 

Additional offsetting receipts (Sec. 244) .......................................................................................................... ............................ ¥32,000 ¥32,000 ¥32,000 ............................Administrative contract expenses ..................................................................................................................... 127,000 170,000 145,000 ∂18,000 ¥25,000 

General and Special Risk Program Account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (30,000,000 ) (30,000,000 ) (30,000,000 ) ............................ ............................(Limitation on direct loans) .............................................................................................................................. (20,000 ) (20,000 ) (20,000 ) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥926,000 ¥876,000 ¥876,000 ∂50,000 ............................

(Rescission) .............................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ¥10,000 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 

Total, Federal Housing Administration ................................................................................................ ¥11,697,000 ¥8,725,000 ¥8,760,000 ∂2,937,000 ¥35,000 

Government National Mortgage Association 

Guarantees of Mortgage-backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program Account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (500,000,000 ) (500,000,000 ) (500,000,000 ) ............................ ............................Administrative expenses .................................................................................................................................... 19,500 28,000 24,000 ∂4,500 ¥4,000 Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥100,000 ¥94,000 ¥94,000 ∂6,000 ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥707,000 ¥742,000 ¥742,000 ¥35,000 ............................Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM) (Sec. 210) .............................................................................................. ¥12,000 ¥28,000 ¥28,000 ¥16,000 ............................Additional contract expenses ............................................................................................................................ 1,000 1,000 1,000 ............................ ............................

Total, Gov’t National Mortgage Association ................................................................................................. ¥798,500 ¥835,000 ¥839,000 ¥40,500 ¥4,000 

Policy Development and Research 

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

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 

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

Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes 

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

Management and Administration 

Information Technology Fund ..................................................................................................................................... 250,000 272,000 250,000 ............................ ¥22,000 Office of Inspector General ........................................................................................................................................ 125,000 129,000 129,000 ∂4,000 ............................Transformation Initiative ............................................................................................................................................ 40,000 ............................ ............................ ¥40,000 ............................

(by transfer) ...................................................................................................................................................... ............................ (80,000 ) (40,000 ) (∂40,000 ) (¥40,000 ) 

Total, Management and Administration ....................................................................................................... 415,000 401,000 379,000 ¥36,000 ¥22,000 
190 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2014 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2014 appropriation Budget estimate 

(Grand total, Management and Administration) .......................................................................................... (1,722,000 ) (1,766,649 ) (1,708,144 ) (¥13,856 ) (¥58,505 ) Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Development .................................................................. 32,809,446 36,906,049 36,045,630 ∂3,236,184 ¥860,419 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (41,062,476 ) (42,275,049 ) (41,431,404 ) (∂368,928 ) (¥843,645 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥3,500 ) ............................ (¥16,774 ) (¥13,274 ) (¥16,774 ) Advance appropriations ....................................................................................................................... (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................... (¥12,643,000 ) (¥9,759,000 ) (¥9,759,000 ) (∂2,884,000 ) ............................Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................... (¥6,530 ) (¥10,000 ) (¥10,000 ) (¥3,470 ) ............................

(By transfer) .................................................................................................................................................. ............................ 80,000 40,000 ∂40,000 ¥40,000 (Limitation on direct loans) .......................................................................................................................... (40,000 ) (40,000 ) (40,000 ) ............................ ............................(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................................................................................. (931,986,868 ) (931,700,000 ) (931,230,420 ) (¥756,448 ) (¥469,580 ) 

TITLE III—OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Access Board .............................................................................................................................................................. 7,448 7,548 7,548 ∂100 ............................Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General (legislative proposal) .............................................. ............................ 48,000 ............................ ............................ ¥48,000 

Offsetting collections (legislative proposal) ..................................................................................................... ............................ ¥48,000 ............................ ............................ ∂48,000 

Federal Maritime Commission .................................................................................................................................... 24,669 25,660 25,660 ∂991 ............................National Railroad Passenger Corporation Inspector General .................................................................................... 23,499 24,499 23,499 ............................ ¥1,000 National Transportation Safety Board ........................................................................................................................ 103,027 103,000 103,981 ∂954 ∂981 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ................................................................................................................... 204,100 182,000 186,600 ¥17,500 ∂4,600 United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ................................................................................................ 3,500 3,530 3,530 ∂30 ............................

Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies ................................................................................................. 366,243 346,237 350,818 ¥15,425 ∂4,581 Grand total .................................................................................................................................................... 50,856,000 50,965,337 54,439,000 ∂3,583,000 ∂3,473,663 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (59,241,834 ) (56,645,587 ) (60,082,324 ) (∂840,490 ) (∂3,436,737 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥135,054 ) ............................ (¥16,774 ) (∂118,280 ) (¥16,774 ) Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ ............................ (¥256,000 ) (¥256,300 ) (¥256,300 ) (¥300 ) Advance appropriations ....................................................................................................................... (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) (4,400,000 ) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................... (¥12,643,000 ) (¥9,759,000 ) (¥9,759,000 ) (∂2,884,000 ) ............................
191 

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................... (¥7,780 ) (¥65,250 ) (¥11,250 ) (¥3,470 ) (∂54,000 ) 

(By transfer) .................................................................................................................................................. ............................ 371,000 40,000 ∂40,000 ¥331,000 (Limitation on obligations) ........................................................................................................................... (53,471,000 ) (75,767,171 ) (53,623,300 ) (∂152,300 ) (¥22,143,871 ) 

Total budgetary resources ................................................................................................................... (104,327,000 ) (126,732,508 ) (108,062,300 ) (∂3,735,300 ) (¥18,670,208 ) 

Æ