99–836 PDF 

Calendar No. 433 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 114–243 

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

2017 

APRIL 21, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 

Ms. COLLINS, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted 

the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2844] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2844) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and 

Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. 

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2017 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $56,474,000,000 

Amount of 2016 appropriations ............................... 57,600,707,000 

Amount of 2017 budget estimate 1 .......................... 51,992,343,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2016 appropriations .......................................... ¥1,126,707,000 

2017 budget estimate ........................................ ∂4,481,657,000 1The budget estimate proposed shifting $7,415,017,000 in discretionary surface 

transportation programs to mandatory funding from the Transportation Trust Fund. 

The Committee recommendation does not reclassify the funding for these programs. 

For proper comparison, the 2017 budget estimate should include the additional 

$7,415,017,000. 
(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 

Guidance Documents ............................................................................................... 6 

Transparency Requirement ..................................................................................... 6 

Title I: Department of Transportation: 

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

Federal Aviation Administration .................................................................... 24 

Federal Highway Administration .................................................................... 43 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ............................................... 50 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration .......................................... 54 

Federal Railroad Administration .................................................................... 59 

Federal Transit Administration ...................................................................... 66 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ....................................... 73 

Maritime Administration ................................................................................. 74 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ........................... 79 

Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 81 

General Provisions—Department of Transportation ..................................... 82 

Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

Management and Administration ................................................................... 84 

Administrative Support Offices ....................................................................... 88 

Program Offices Salaries and Expenses ......................................................... 89 

Public and Indian Housing .............................................................................. 95 

Community Planning and Development ......................................................... 112 

Housing Programs ............................................................................................ 119 

Federal Housing Administration ..................................................................... 125 

Government National Mortgage Association .................................................. 126 

Policy Development and Research .................................................................. 127 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ............................................................. 128 

Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes ...................................... 130 

Information Technology Fund ......................................................................... 131 

Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 134 

General Provisions—Department of Housing and Urban Development ...... 134 

Title III: Independent Agencies: 

Access Board ..................................................................................................... 138 

Federal Maritime Commission ........................................................................ 139 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Office of Inspector General ...... 139 

National Transportation Safety Board ........................................................... 140 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ....................................................... 141 

Surface Transportation Board ......................................................................... 142 

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ................................... 143 

Title IV: General Provisions—This Act .................................................................. 147 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate 148 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 149 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 149 

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

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 167 
(3) 

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL 

The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies appropriations bill provides funding for a wide array 

of Federal programs, mostly in the Departments of Transportation 

[DOT] and Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. These programs include investments in road, transit, rail, maritime, and airport infrastructure; the operation of the Nation’s air traffic control 

system; housing assistance for those in need, including the homeless, elderly, and disabled; resources to support community planning and development; activities to improve road, rail, and pipeline 

safety; and a wide range of research efforts. 

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

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

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

partners to protect human health and safety, support a vibrant 

economy, and achieve policy objectives strongly supported by the 

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

investments is made challenging by pressure on available levels of 

discretionary spending as a consequence of the overall public debate on Federal spending, revenues, and the 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 nearly 5 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, youth, individuals and families. 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 2017. 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 2017, 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. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES 

The Committee includes a provision (section 405) establishing 

the authority by which funding available to the agencies funded by 

this act may be reprogrammed for other purposes. The provision 

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

funds that: 

—creates a new program; 

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

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

been denied or restricted by the Congress; 

—proposes to redirect funds that were directed in such reports 

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

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

—creates, reorganizes, or restructures offices different from the 

congressional budget justifications or the table at the end of 

the Committee report, whichever is more detailed. 

The Committee retains the requirement that each agency submit 

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

authorities provided in this act. Specifically, each agency should 

provide a table for each appropriation with columns displaying the 

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

year enacted level. The table shall delineate the appropriation and 

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

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

The report must also identify items of special congressional interest. 

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

justification of increases and reductions and the specific impact the 

proposed changes will have on the budget request for the following 
5 

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 

2018 budget request by agencies funded under this act contain the 

customary level of detailed data and explanatory statements to 

support the appropriations requests at the level of detail contained 

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

items, agencies shall provide a detailed discussion of proposed new 

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

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

a minimum, each agency must also provide adequate justification 

for funding and staffing changes for each individual office and materials that compare programs, projects, and activities that are proposed for fiscal year 2018 to the fiscal year 2017 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 
6 

advance on its planned presentation for its budget justification materials in support of the fiscal year 2018 budget request. 

The Committee directs each agency to include within its budget 

justification a report on all efforts made to address the duplication 

identified by the annual GAO reports along with legal barriers preventing the agency’s ability to further reduce duplication and legislative recommendations, if applicable. 

GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS 

The Committee is increasingly concerned about the use of guidance documents, or interpretive rules, to impose new requirements 

on regulated entities even though such documents are not legally 

binding. The Supreme Court has recognized there can be a fine line 

between what should be issued as a regulation for purposes of notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure 

Act and what can be issued as guidance. The Supreme Court has 

also recognized that Federal agencies may sometimes issue guidance to circumvent the notice and comment rulemaking process. 

Legal scholars and multiple members of Congress have also expressed concern about the use of guidance to avoid rulemaking. Finally, the Government Accountability Office found that if an agency periodically reviews its guidance it can significantly reduce unnecessary guidance. For example, after a sub-agency in the Department of Labor reviewed its guidance to determine if it was relevant 

and current, the sub-agency was able to reduce its guidance by 85 

percent. GAO also found that the dissemination of guidance to the 

public can be improved. 

The Committee recommends the Departments of Transportation 

and Housing and Urban Development clearly label in a plain, 

prominent, and permanent manner that the agency’s guidance documents are not legally binding and may not be relied upon by the 

agency as grounds for agency action. The Committee also recommends this include a thorough explanation on an agency’s guidance document about why the agency believes it is appropriate to 

issue guidance about a matter instead of proposing a regulation 

and what specific statutory provisions or regulation(s) the guidance 

is interpreting. The Committee further recommends this guidance 

be updated every 2 years, with input solicited from the public, to 

determine if any of its guidance is duplicative, outdated, ineffective, 

insufficient, or excessively burdensome and needs to be modified, 

streamlined, or repealed and place all guidance documents in one 

place on its Web site as well as on the relevant sub-agency Web 

page. This information should be easily accessible for the public to 

comment on guidance and should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget to determine if the guidance is significant. 

TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT 

The Committee is aware that agencies funded in this act use resources for advertising purposes. The Committee directs the agencies in this act to state within the text, audio, or video used for new 

advertising purposes, including advertising/posting on the Internet, 

that the advertisements are printed, published, or produced and 

disseminated at U.S. taxpayer expense. The agencies may exempt 
7 

any such advertisements from this requirement if it creates an adverse impact on safety or impedes the ability of these agencies to 

carry out their statutory authority. 
(8) 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

The Committee regularly receives technical assistance from the 

Department in order to ensure that Appropriations bills are implemented as intended by Congress. While the vast majority of technical assistance from the Department is accurate and timely, the 

Committee is disappointed in certain instances of poor technical assistance in recent years. Specifically, the Department has withheld 

information from the Committee regarding idle funding that could 

have been more appropriately spent and has made inaccurate 

statements regarding the availability of resources the Committee 

intended to provide. Additionally, the Department provided inaccurate technical assistance to the Committee, inconsistent with the 

intent of Congress, which could lead to devastating impacts on the 

commercial motor vehicle industry and increase costs to consumers 

all while knowing the intent of Congress was not the case. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of any 

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related 

Agencies appropriations bill passing the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations regarding any concerns or challenges with 

implementation of funding levels or policy directives contained in 

each bill or report. 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

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

1966 (Public Law 89–670) provides for the establishment of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. OST is comprised of 

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

Secretary of Transportation for Policy, including the offices of the 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs and the 

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

Emergency Response, and Chief Information Officer. OST also includes the Department’s Office of Civil Rights and the Department’s Working Capital Fund. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $108,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 114,396,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 116,396,000 
9 

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 $116,396,000 for salaries 

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

budget request and $7,646,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 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 request to merge the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization with Minority Business Outreach 

is approved and these functions are now consolidated into the new 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and Outreach. 

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 2016 enacted level and the 

budget request: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2016 enacted 2017 estimate 

Office of the Secretary ................................................................... $2,734,000 $2,758,000 $2,758,000 

Office of the Deputy Secretary ...................................................... 1,025,000 1,040,000 1,040,000 

Office of the General Counsel ....................................................... 20,609,000 20,772,000 20,772,000 

Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy ........... 9,941,000 11,108,000 11,108,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs ........ 13,697,000 14,020,000 16,020,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs ......... 2,546,000 2,569,000 2,569,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration .................... 25,925,000 30,054,000 30,054,000 

Office of Public Affairs .................................................................. 2,029,000 2,142,000 2,142,000 

Office of the Executive Secretariat ................................................ 1,737,000 1,760,000 1,760,000 

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

Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response ........... 10,793,000 11,089,000 11,089,000 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ......................................... 16,280,000 17,084,000 17,084,000 

Total .................................................................................. 108,750,000 114,396,000 116,396,000 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Secretary of Transportation provides leadership and has the 

primary responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and 

control of the Department. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,758,000 for fiscal year 2017 for 

the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation is 
10 

equal to the budget request and $24,000 more than the fiscal year 

2016 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 nearly 2 million Americans who fly each day and challenging for the airlines. The Committee is strongly concerned with the duration of this rulemaking 

process and 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. 

Puget Sound.—The Committee commends FTA’s Region 10 and 

the FHWA’s Washington Division for signing the Puget Sound Federal Caucus Memorandum of Understanding in 2014. The recovery 

and cleanup of Puget Sound is essential to the regional economy 

and continued coordination and sharing of expertise among Federal 

partners is critical to furthering current efforts. The Committee directs the DOT agencies that are party to the Memorandum to work 

with their counterparts in the Puget Sound Federal Caucus to 

renew and strengthen the MOU prior to its expiration on March 

27, 2017. 

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 $1,040,000 for the Immediate Office 

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

$15,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 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 and the final authority on all legal questions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $20,772,000 for expenses of the Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2017. The recommended 

funding level is equal to the budget request and $163,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 
11 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $11,108,000 for the Office of the 

Under Secretary for Policy. The recommended funding level is 

equal to the budget request and $1,167,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2016 enacted level. The request to fund a new Office of Safety 

Oversight is denied. Instead, funding is provided directly to the operating modes to address critical safety needs. 

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 $16,020,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The recommended level 

is $2,000,000 more than the budget request and $2,323,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The Committee recommendation includes not less than $2,000,000 to assist the Department in complying with the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. The amount provided is $2,000,000 less than the 

budget request, which was requested as a separate appropriation. 

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 na-
12 

tional 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 $2,569,000 for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The recommended level is equal to the budget request and $23,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $30,054,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding 

level is equal to the budget request and $4,129,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,142,000 for the Office of Public 

Affairs, which is equal to the budget request and $113,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2016 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 $1,760,000 for the Executive Secretariat. The recommendation is equal to the budget request and 

$23,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 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 recommendation is consistent with the budget request for the Office to merge with Minority Business Outreach into 

the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and 

Outreach. 

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

procedures for the Department to balance transportation security 

requirements with the safety, mobility, and economic needs of the 

Nation. The Office keeps the Secretary and his advisors apprised 

of current developments and long-range trends in international 

issues, including terrorism, aviation, trade, transportation markets, 

and trade agreements. The Office also advises the Department’s 

leaders on policy issues related to intelligence, threat information 

sharing, national security strategies and national preparedness and 

response planning. 

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

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

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

and recovery support through the National Response Framework 

and operates the Department’s Crisis Management Center. The 

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $11,089,000 for the Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response. The recommendation is 

equal to the budget request and $296,000 more than the fiscal year 

2016 enacted level. 
14 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

principal adviser to the Secretary on matters involving information 

technology, cybersecurity, privacy, and records management. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $17,084,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Information Officer, which is equal to the budget request and 

$804,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $13,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 18,007,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,044,000 

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; implementing the civil signal performance monitoring requirements in the Global Positioning Systems NextGen 

Operational Control System in collaboration with the Air Force; 

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 $13,044,000 for 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology. 

This amount is $4,963,000 less than the budget request and 

$44,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The following 

table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison 

to the budget request and the fiscal year 2016 enacted level: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2016 enacted 2017 estimate 

Salaries and Administrative Expenses .......................................... $4,782,000 $5,389,409 $4,826,000 

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

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

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

Civil Signal Monitoring—Air Force—GPS ..................................... ............................ 10,000,000 5,600,000 

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

Total .................................................................................. 13,000,000 18,007,409 13,044,000 

University Transportation Centers.—The Committee continues to 

support University Transportation Centers, which is funded 
15 

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

continue to receive the levels authorized under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act. 

Small Business Innovation Research.—The Committee recognizes 

the importance of the Small Business Innovation Research [SBIR] 

program and its previous success in commercialization from federally funded research and development projects. The SBIR program 

encourages domestic small business to engage in Federal research 

and development and creates jobs in the smallest firms. The Committee therefore urges the Department to place an increased focus 

on awarding SBIR awards to firms with fewer than 50 people. In 

addition, the Committee encourages the Department to take steps 

to ensure SBIR spending levels meet or exceed statutory requirements. 

Technology Solutions.—The Committee encourages the Department of Transportation to review and test nano-technology solutions that may provide a benefit to Federal, State and local governments by extending the life and utility of materials such as cement, 

asphalt and steel. 

Autonomous Vehicles.—The Committee recognizes the rapid pace 

at which autonomous vehicle technology is developing, and is interested in validating the safety of the new technology. To help facilitate the deployment and safety testing of autonomous vehicles, the 

Committee encourages the Secretary to solicit applications under 

the Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program for autonomous vehicle projects to 

test the feasibility of deployment through geographically contained 

ridesharing pilot programs. In reviewing applications, the Secretary should consider the extent to which applicants propose to include the gathering and sharing of critical safety data with the government and the extent to which applicants propose to test the 

benefits of the technology with groups that might otherwise have 

limited transportation options, such as older Americans who no 

longer drive or those with disabilities or no driver’s license. 

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $500,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 1 ......................................................................... 1,250,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 525,000,000 

1 Requested as mandatory funding from the transportation trust fund. 

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. 
16 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $525,000,000 for grants 

and credit assistance for investment in significant transportation 

projects, which is $25,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The request shifts this program to mandatory spending. The Committee, however, does not expect the enactment of legislation that funds this program on the mandatory side of the 

budget, and therefore provides its funding recommendation in 

order to continue investment in these important transportation 

projects. The recommendation does not include funding for the 21st 

century clean transportation investments plan. 

Planning Activities.—The Committee recommendation allows up 

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

of projects eligible for funding under this heading. 

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 has set aside no less than 

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

areas, and included specific provisions to match grant requirements 

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

Port Infrastructure.—The Committee recognizes the important 

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

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

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

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

increases demand on our transportation systems. Therefore, the 

Committee continues to identify inland and land based ports as eligible recipients of this program and directs the Secretary to take 

into consideration, when selecting recipients, the annual tonnage, 

existing terminal capacity, and potential economic benefits of improvements to, or expansion of, ports. 

NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND INNOVATIVE FINANCE

BUREAU

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... $3,000,000 

Committee Recommendation ................................................................ 3,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Surface Transportation and Innovative Finance Bureau will administer and coordinate or consolidate aspects of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation’s existing surface transportation innovative finance programs as authorized in section 9001 of 
17 

the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation [FAST] Act, contingent upon advance approval by the Committee. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to establish and fulfill 

the duties of the National Surface Transportation and Innovative 

Finance Bureau, as authorized in section 9001 of the FAST Act, 

which is equal to the budget request and $3,000,000 above fiscal 

year 2016 enacted level. The Committee directs the Bureau to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on 

streamlining the application approval processes as required under 

49 U.S.C. 116(d)(5). 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 4,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

The initiative includes upgrading and enhancing the commercial 

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is recommending $4,000,000 to complete the Secretary’s Financial Management Capital initiative, which is equal to 

the budget request and $1,000,000 less than fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $8,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 15,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,000,000 

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 $15,000,000 to support 

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

budget request and $7,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 
18 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $9,678,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 9,751,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,751,000 

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 $9,751,000 for the 

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

request and $73,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $8,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 17,043,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,043,000 

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 $12,043,000 for Transportation Planning, Research, and Development, which is $5,000,000 less 

than the budget request and $3,543,000 more than the fiscal year 

2016 enacted level. The Committee directs the Secretary to dedicate $3,000,000 to support the Interagency Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Center. Further, the Committee rejects the request for the proposed Clean Energy Research—Green Ports Study. 

Nonmotorized User Safety.—The Committee is aware that adults 

65 and over make up a disproportionate share of pedestrian fatalities and that pedestrian fatalities continue to rise. Consistent with 

section 1442 of the FAST Act, the Secretary of Transportation 

should conduct rigorous outreach to States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations for the purpose of creating safe communities 

and reducing traffic fatalities among nonmotorized users. Specifi-
19 

cally through the Safer People, Safer Streets initiative, the Secretary should expand the availability of technical assistance and 

training workshops to help States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations [MPOs] revise their practices, standards and performance measurements in all phases of project planning, development, 

and operation with the goal of reducing fatalities among nonmotorized users. In fulfilling the report required in section 1442, 

the Secretary should include guidance to States on how to identify 

the design and accommodation needs for each class of roadway 

user, separated by categories of age and ability, as well as actions 

that could be taken by State and local partners to improve safe and 

adequate accommodations for all users of the transportation network, including recommendations on changing policies and procedures; practical steps to modify planned and existing infrastructure; a list of common barriers to implementation and recommendations to overcome such barriers; guidance on evaluating 

the costs and benefits of safe and adequate accommodations; and 

recommendations for maximizing State and local cooperation. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2016 ..................................................................................... $190,039,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 190,389,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Working Capital Fund provides technical and administrative 

services to the Department’s operating administrations and other 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $190,389,000 on activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The recommended limit is $350,000 more than the limit enacted for fiscal 

year 2016. The Department requested that no limitation be included for fiscal year 2017. 

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

Working Capital Fund shall apply only to the Department and not 

to services provided for other entities. The Committee directs services to be provided on a competitive basis to the maximum extent 

possible. 

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

the justifications for fiscal year 2017 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 

2018. 
20 

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriations Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................................................... $933,000 $18,367,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................................................... 941,000 ........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................................................... 941,000 18,367,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Minority Business Resource Center of the Office of Small 

and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and Outreach 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 $339,000 to 

cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $602,000 for administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan program. 

These recommended levels provide a total funding level of $941,000 

for the Minority Business Resource Center. This total funding level 

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

2016 enacted level. The Committee also recommends a limitation 

on guaranteed loans of $18,367,000, equal to the fiscal year 2016 

enacted level. 

OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION AND

OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $3,084,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 4,646,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,646,000 

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 $4,646,000 for grants and contrac- tual support, which is $1,562,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 

enacted level and equal to the budget request. The Committee supports the request to merge the Minority Business Outreach program with the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization from the Salaries and Expenses accounts, to be called the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and Out-
21 

reach. The Committee accepts this approach, fully funding the request for this consolidation. 

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides funding for the Essential Air Service 

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

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

that meet certain criteria. 

The Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] collects user fees 

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

These fees are commonly referred to as ‘‘overflight fees’’ and the receipts from the fees are used to help finance the EAS program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Appropriations Mandatory Total 

Appropriation, 2016 ................................................................................... $175,000,000 $108,000,000 $283,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 .............................................................................. 150,000,000 104,000,000 254,000,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 150,000,000 104,000,000 254,000,000 

The Committee recommends the appropriation of $150,000,000 

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

an estimated $104,000,000 of overflight fees collected by the FAA, 

allowing the Department to support a total program level for EAS 

of $254,000,000. The appropriation and the level of funding from 

overflight fees under the Committee’s recommendation are both 

equal to the budget request. The total program level under the 

Committee’s recommendation is $29,000,000 less than the total 

program level enacted for fiscal year 2016, which was comprised of 

an appropriation of $175,000,000 plus $108,000,000 in overflight 

fees. 

Proximity to the Nearest Hub Airport.—The Committee continues 

to include a provision that prohibits the Department from entering 

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

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

Aircraft Size Requirement.—The Committee continues to include 

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

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

where viable proposals for service are not available. The Committee 

does not expect the Department to use this flexibility simply to 

lower costs if a community can show regular enplanement levels 

that would justify larger aircraft. 
22 

EAS Airports.—The Committee recognizes that seasonal airports 

may need to operate beyond current dates and therefore recommends that the FAA utilize existing budget authorities to ensure seasonal EAS airports are able to operate when airport resources and weather permit. 

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

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER 

State EAS communities 

Est. miles to 

nearest hub 

(S, M, or L) 

Average 

enplanements 

per day 

Annual subsidy rates at 

9/30/15 

Passenger 

totals at 

9/30/15 

Subsidy per 

passenger at 

9/30/15 

AL Muscle Shoals 1 ............................... 60 1.9 $605,728 1,208 $501 

AR El Dorado/Camden ........................... 117 13.4 1,624,636 8,390 194 

AR Harrison ........................................... 86 15.5 2,168,360 9,734 223 

AR Hot Springs ...................................... 51 9.9 1,423,980 6,198 230 

AR Jonesboro ......................................... 82 15.3 1,921,026 9,571 201 

AZ Kingman 2 ........................................ 121 1.3 856,348 787 n/a 

AZ Page ................................................. 282 9.1 1,891,308 5,727 330 

AZ Prescott ............................................ 102 11.0 2,056,469 6,916 297 

AZ Show Low ......................................... 173 5.6 1,112,976 3,508 317 

CA Crescent City 1 ................................. 231 18.1 1,261,488 11,315 111 

CA El Centro .......................................... 101 8.4 1,947,342 5,228 372 

CA Merced 1 ........................................... 60 10.7 1,918,704 6,705 286 

CA Visalia .............................................. 47 14.9 1,899,753 9,297 204 

CO Alamosa ........................................... 164 9.8 1,604,276 6,119 262 

CO Cortez ............................................... 255 7.5 1,122,323 4,705 239 

CO Pueblo 1 ............................................ 36 4.9 1,502,092 3,069 489 

GA Macon 1 ............................................ 82 0.3 193,851 188 n/a 

IA Burlington ........................................ 98 21.2 1,949,808 13,300 147 

IA Fort Dodge 1 ..................................... 91 10.5 2,140,470 6,599 324 

IA Mason City 1 .................................... 131 17.7 3,268,588 11,078 295 

IA Sioux City ......................................... 88 79.8 600,222 49,959 12 

IA Waterloo ........................................... 63 76.8 911,778 48,101 19 

IL Decatur ............................................ 126 23.7 2,668,817 14,859 180 

IL Marion/Herrin ................................... 123 30.6 2,129,562 19,148 111 

IL Quincy .............................................. 111 29.4 1,974,896 18,419 107 

KS Dodge City ....................................... 150 6.9 1,558,776 4,339 359 

KS Garden City ...................................... 202 82.7 1,412,990 51,774 27 

KS Great Bend 2 .................................... 114 0.7 697,477 462 1,510 

KS Hays ................................................. 166 27.9 2,219,610 17,496 127 

KS Liberal/Guymon, OK ......................... 228 8.4 1,558,290 5,280 295 

KS Salina .............................................. 97 4.5 997,557 2,824 353 

KY Owensboro ....................................... 115 12.0 1,551,120 7,481 207 

KY Paducah ........................................... 146 68.1 1,956,717 42,621 46 

MD Hagerstown ...................................... 78 3.8 1,453,430 2,374 612 

ME Augusta/Waterville ........................... 58 15.8 1,764,038 9,903 178 

ME Bar Harbor ....................................... 157 14.0 1,620,836 8,785 185 

ME Presque Isle/Houlton ........................ 274 40.5 4,680,585 25,322 185 

ME Rockland .......................................... 76 21.3 1,824,399 13,306 137 

MI Alpena .............................................. 174 32.6 2,128,800 20,405 104 

MI Escanaba ......................................... 227 51.9 3,318,111 32,485 102 

MI Hancock/Houghton ........................... 321 76.7 649,152 48,033 14 

MI Iron Mountain/Kingsford .................. 223 34.6 2,794,707 21,659 129 

MI Ironwood/Ashland, WI ...................... 213 14.8 3,439,386 9,265 371 

MI Manistee/Ludington ......................... 121 15.9 1,481,048 9,983 148 

MI Muskegon ......................................... 49 48.4 1,325,415 30,305 44 

MI Pellston ............................................ 213 79.8 1,004,018 49,958 20 

MI Sault Ste. Marie .............................. 281 71.8 1,601,568 44,939 36 

MN Bemidji ............................................ 128 74.7 1,133,001 46,754 24 

MN Brainerd ........................................... 123 53.2 1,581,872 33,291 48 

MN Chisholm/Hibbing ............................ 199 37.1 2,537,352 23,227 109 
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 

9/30/15 

Passenger 

totals at 

9/30/15 

Subsidy per 

passenger at 

9/30/15 

MN International Falls ........................... 298 41.8 1,789,868 26,195 68 

MN Thief River Falls .............................. 129 3.4 2,119,062 2,151 985 

MO Cape Girardeau/Sikeston ................. 127 18.6 1,649,760 11,631 142 

MO Fort Leonard Wood ........................... 85 24.5 2,561,219 15,363 167 

MO Joplin ............................................... 70 86.9 427,518 54,373 8 

MO Kirksville .......................................... 137 17.0 1,655,208 10,626 156 

MS Greenville 1 ....................................... 124 0.7 309,600 441 702 

MS Laurel/Hattiesburg ........................... 85 31.2 3,805,284 19,539 195 

MS Meridian ........................................... 84 67.4 3,769,249 42,178 89 

MS Tupelo .............................................. 94 8.3 1,725,914 5,181 333 

MT Butte ................................................ 75 85.4 737,880 53,466 14 

MT Glasgow ........................................... 285 12.0 2,054,790 7,504 274 

MT Glendive ........................................... 223 7.8 1,931,811 4,885 395 

MT Havre ............................................... 230 7.7 2,024,704 4,795 422 

MT Sidney .............................................. 272 30.6 3,773,979 19,170 197 

MT West Yellowstone ............................. 89 65.4 497,170 15,952 31 

MT Wolf Point ........................................ 293 11.9 2,160,390 7,462 290 

ND Devils Lake ...................................... 159 16.6 2,997,834 10,379 289 

ND Jamestown ND ................................. 92 24.2 3,042,799 15,164 201 

NE Alliance ............................................ 233 3.4 923,316 2,124 435 

NE Chadron ........................................... 290 3.3 842,014 2,036 414 

NE Grand Island .................................... 138 82.5 1,673,526 51,633 32 

NE Kearney ............................................ 181 15.2 2,077,827 9,493 219 

NE McCook ............................................ 256 1.3 695,303 791 879 

NE North Platte ..................................... 255 12.0 1,743,106 7,501 232 

NE Scottsbluff ....................................... 192 11.9 1,621,737 7,480 217 

NH Lebanon/White River Junction, VT ... 74 31.8 2,883,284 19,926 145 

NM Carlsbad .......................................... 149 4.4 1,288,380 2,767 466 

NM Clovis ............................................... 102 15.7 3,234,816 9,815 330 

NM Silver City/Hurley/Deming ................ 134 9.5 2,804,544 5,954 471 

NY Jamestown NY ................................. 76 5.3 1,790,066 3,289 544 

NY Massena .......................................... 138 13.8 2,253,178 8,634 261 

NY Ogdensburg ..................................... 105 14.8 2,034,732 9,243 220 

NY Plattsburgh ...................................... 82 26.0 2,807,973 16,253 173 

NY Saranac Lake/Lake Placid ............... 138 15.7 1,835,530 9,826 187 

NY Watertown NY .................................. 54 61.5 3,273,620 38,521 85 

OR Pendleton ......................................... 185 13.5 1,797,333 8,422 213 

PA Altoona ............................................. 112 7.3 1,920,171 4,568 420 

PA Bradford 1 ........................................ 77 7.3 1,315,318 4,546 289 

PA DuBois ............................................. 112 10.9 2,199,516 6,793 324 

PA Franklin/Oil City 1 ............................ 85 2.9 934,506 1,815 515 

PA Johnstown ........................................ 84 13.6 2,338,824 8,485 276 

PA Lancaster ......................................... 28 4.2 2,002,455 2,620 764 

SD Aberdeen .......................................... 176 85.4 1,058,488 53,450 20 

SD Huron 2 ............................................. 121 3.1 2,500,160 1,920 1,302 

SD Watertown SD .................................. 102 4.3 2,446,273 2,688 910 

TN Jackson ............................................ 86 3.9 1,435,281 2,427 591 

TX Victoria ............................................ 119 9.5 2,420,118 5,977 405 

UT Cedar City ........................................ 179 41.6 2,351,695 26,045 90 

UT Moab 1 .............................................. 256 12.5 1,361,409 7,851 173 

UT Vernal 1 ............................................ 150 8.4 819,864 5,279 155 

VA Staunton .......................................... 113 17.2 1,823,986 10,751 170 

VT Rutland ............................................ 69 16.9 1,352,052 10,562 128 

WI Eau Claire ........................................ 92 53.5 1,492,861 33,512 45 

WI Rhinelander ..................................... 190 69.5 1,878,684 43,524 43 

WV Beckley ............................................. 168 7.6 2,946,550 4,729 623 

WV Clarksburg/Fairmont ........................ 96 14.7 2,278,596 9,218 247 

WV Greenbrier/White Sulphur Springs ... 162 18.3 3,488,764 11,431 305 

WV Morgantown ..................................... 75 24.0 2,316,855 15,015 154 

WV Parkersburg/Marietta, OH ................ 110 14.2 3,338,140 8,907 375 

WY Cody ................................................. 106 104.8 1,340,218 65,574 20 

WY Laramie ............................................ 145 40.5 1,908,913 25,328 75 
24 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER—Continued 

State EAS communities 

Est. miles to 

nearest hub 

(S, M, or L) 

Average 

enplanements 

per day 

Annual subsidy rates at 

9/30/15 

Passenger 

totals at 

9/30/15 

Subsidy per 

passenger at 

9/30/15 

WY Worland 2 ......................................... 161 2.7 1,866,872 1,697 1,100 

1 Service Hiatus: 

Bradford, PA—no service between 10/31/14 and 2/28/15 

Crescent City, CA—no service between 4/7/15 and 9/15/15 

Fort Dodge, IA—no service between 10/1/14 and 2/23/15 

Franklin/Oil City, PA—no service between 11/1/14 and 3/4/15 

Greenville, MS—no service between 10/1/14 and 3/16/15 

Macon, GA—no service between 11/5/14 and 9/30/15 

Mason City, IA—no service between 10/1/14 and 11/17/14 

Merced, CA—no service between 8/31/15 and 9/30/15 

Moab, UT—no service between 4/30/15 and 9/30/15 

Muscle Shoals, AL—no service between 10/1/14 and 1/12/15 

Pueblo, CO—no service between 6/3/15 and 9/30/15 

Vernal, UT—no service between 5/1/15 and 9/30/15. 2 Termination: 

Kingman, AZ—the Department issued Order 2015–3-6 on 3/13/2015 to terminate Kingman’s eligibility as of 4/30/15, because the 

subsidy per passenger exceeded the $1,000 statutory limit during fiscal year 2014. 

DOT has tentatively terminated the eligibility of Great Bend, KS, Huron, SD, and Worland, WY because the subsidy per passenger ex- ceeded the $1,000 statutory limit during fiscal year 2015. 3 Actual subsidy paid may be less than obligated amounts because air carriers may have completed fewer flights than proposed. 

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 allows the Department of Transportation to make 

use of the Working Capital Fund in providing transit benefits to 

Federal employees. 

Section 103 places simple administrative requirements on the 

Department of Transportation’s Council on Credit and Finance. 

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 [FAA] 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] 
25 

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 

2017 amounts to $16,412,354,000 including new budget authority 

and a limitation on the obligation of contract authority. This funding level is $512,502,000 more than the budget request and 

$131,630,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for fiscal year 2017 in comparison to the budget request and 

the fiscal year 2016 enacted level: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2016 enacted 2017 estimate 

Operations ................................................................................ $9,909,724,000 $9,994,352,000 $10,048,352,000 

Facilities and equipment ......................................................... 2,855,000,000 2,838,000,000 2,838,000,000 

Research, engineering, and development ............................... 166,000,000 167,500,000 176,002,000 

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

Rescissions .............................................................................. .............................. .............................. ..............................

Total ............................................................................ 16,280,724,000 15,899,852,000 16,412,354,000 

OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $9,909,724,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 9,994,352,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,048,352,000 

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 
26 

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 $10,048,352,000 for FAA 

Operations. This funding level is $54,000,000 more than the budget 

request, and $138,628,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level. The Committee recommendation derives $9,190,000,000 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, the 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 2016 enacted level: 

FAA OPERATIONS 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2016 enacted 2017 estimate 

Air traffic organization ............................................................ $7,505,293,000 $7,539,785,000 $7,593,785,000 

Aviation safety ......................................................................... 1,258,411,000 1,286,982,000 1,286,982,000 

Commercial space transportation ........................................... 17,800,000 19,826,000 19,826,000 

Finance and Management ....................................................... 760,500,000 771,342,000 771,342,000 

NextGen Operations and Planning ........................................... 60,089,000 60,155,000 60,155,000 

Security and hazardous materials safety ................................ 100,880,000 107,161,000 107,161,000 

Staff offices ............................................................................. 206,751,000 209,101,000 209,101,000 

Total ............................................................................ 9,909,724,000 9,994,352,000 10,048,352,000 

Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] Reform—Reauthorization 

of FAA Programs and Air Traffic Control Governance.—The last 

multi-year authorization for FAA programs and activities expired 

on September 30, 2015. As a result, the FAA’s programs are in the 

midst of its second short-term extension. The Committee believes 

there is broad consensus on needed reforms to the FAA’s certification process; oversight of unmanned aircraft systems; implementation of NextGen technologies; and the important safety oversight 

role of the FAA. However, there remains vigorous dispute over proposals to separate air traffic control functions from the rest of the 

FAA’s operations. The attempt to remove the air traffic control system from the FAA is fraught with risk, could lead to uncontrollable 

cost increases to consumers, and could ultimately harm users of 

and operators in the system, including the flying public, the aviation community, FAA’s workforce, and the small towns in rural 

America that rely on access to the national air space. 

The Committee strongly believes that air traffic control should 

remain an inherently governmental function where the Air Traffic 

Control Organization [ATO] is subject to on-going congressional 

oversight so that resource needs and activities are reviewed. The 

annual congressional oversight process is best suited to protect con-
27 

sumers and preserve access to urban, suburban and rural communities. The Senate affirmed this position by not including any 

structure changes to privatize the air traffic control system in the 

recent passage of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016. 

The Committee is confident that the able leadership of the authorizing committees can reach an expeditious resolution to a 

multi-year authorization bill while avoiding a prolonged and contentious fight over removing the ATO from the FAA. Given the 

growing congressional opposition to removing the ATO from the 

FAA, the Committee will prohibit funding for this purpose should 

there be any effort to bypass the will of Congress. 

Mission Support Network Capacity Upgrades.—The demand for 

space on the administrative telecom network at air traffic control 

facilities is increasing due to each new application and program requiring more space on the network. This slows down all the programs on the network where, at some facilities, the problem is so 

acute that only few users can be on one application at a time. This 

problem is affecting the ability of air traffic controllers to carry out 

safety-critical electronic training while carrying out other administrative duties. Therefore, the Committee provides $5,000,000 to acquire additional bandwidth on its administrative telecom network 

to support electronic training and other duties of air traffic controllers and other air traffic facility personnel. 

Contract Towers.—The Committee recommendation provides $159,000,000 for the contract tower program, including the costshare contract towers. This total funding level is sufficient to cover 

all towers that will be operating during fiscal year 2017. Current 

law limits contributions in the contract tower cost share program 

to 20 percent of total costs. The Committee finds that Federal Contract Towers are a safe and efficient means to provide air traffic 

control services. The Committee also finds that some contract towers have insufficient staffing and hours of operation. The Committee suggests that the FAA respond within 30 days of formal request from airports or ATC contracts for additional authority to expand contract tower operational hours and staff to accommodate 

flight traffic outside of current tower operational hours. The Committee also suggests that the FAA accommodate needs, especially 

when the airport and ATC contractor are in agreement. 

Contract towers serve as vital public safety and economic development assets to hundreds of communities. Municipalities depend 

on the contract tower program to provide commercial and general 

aviation services, jobs, and public safety, such as air ambulance 

services. The Committee believes future budgets must include adequate funding to prevent reduced operations and support at contract towers. 

Radar Approach Control.—The Committee finds that radar approach control enhances aviation safety and efficiency for regularly 

scheduled commercial airline service. The Committee, therefore, 

recommends that the FAA utilize existing budget authorities to 

promptly provide radar to all FAA ‘‘Type 4’’ air traffic control towers. 

Aircraft Certification.—The Committee continues to support modernizing and streamlining FAA certification processes. The Com-
28 

mittee supports the budget request of nine FTEs to support UAS 

integration in addition to six FTEs for FAA’s Aircraft Certification 

Service to increase capacity and support the certification of new 

technologies. These efforts help provide an efficient and effective 

system for new aviation products and technologies to be manufactured and brought to market. Additionally, it is crucial to improving the safety of old and new aircraft. 

The FAA and industry have developed a number of recommendations to make improvements to the certification system. These recommendations cover a number of items related to maximizing utilization of organizational designation authority, more effective safety 

oversight, better workforce training, and meaningful performance 

metrics. The Committee believes that the FAA must view implementation of these recommendations as one of its critical and highest priorities. 

The Committee also remains concerned about the implementation of the Small Airplane Revitalization Act (Public Law 113–53) 

and notes that the FAA has missed statutory deadlines to modernize the part 23 airworthiness certification process, including 

issuing a final rule by December 15, 2015. Implementation of this 

law will reduce costs, enhance security, and ensure that the FAA 

and the U.S. aviation manufacturing sector remain international 

leaders on safety and certification standards. Therefore, the Committee directs the Administrator to implement the recommendations developed with industry as a result of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act and leverage Aircraft Certification Service funding to promote and facilitate the acceptance of U.S. aeronautical products in international markets. 

Safety, Security and Infrastructure.—After the fire at the Chicago 

Air Route Traffic Control Center on September 26, 2014, FAA conducted a comprehensive security review, which resulted in identifying 42 recommendations, of which 24 of them were deemed significant to improve safety. The funding provided will support activities recommended for implementation of facility security, personnel 

security, and the insider threat program necessary to improve the 

security and support resiliency of FAA critical operations. 

The Committee expects FAA’s continued commitment toward restoring operations immediately following an emergency situation, 

while improving the physical and personnel security to ensure air 

traffic is not brought to a halt, similar to what occurred at ZAU. 

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 pro-
29 

hibits 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. 

Human Intervention Motivation Study.—The Committee recognizes the effectiveness of the Human Intervention Motivation 

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

intervention program. The Committee directs the FAA to continue 

to prioritize this program and use resources made available within 

Operations to support this program. 

FAA Public Hearing.—The Committee remains concerned with 

the proposed modifications to the Condor 1 and Condor 2 military 

operating areas and encourages the 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 [EIS] and the record of decision. The Committee recognizes 

that the Air National Guard, as the lead agency under the NEPA 

process, has sought to meet the minimum legal requirements for 

public participation and comment. However, the Committee remains troubled with how the authorization of low-altitude military 

training in the proposed airspace would affect areas that significantly contribute to the local economy and areas that are culturally 

and environmentally sensitive. Furthermore, the Committee notes 

the FAA is the only Federal agency that can modify special airspace and that the FAA may adopt the Air National Guard’s EIS 

in whole, or in part, once the Final EIS has been issued. In addition, the Committee directs the FAA to report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to the issuance of a 

record of decision regarding the modification of the Condor 1 and 

Condor 2 military operations areas that includes a summary of any 

public meeting and hearing and a list of the comments, questions, 

and responses presented at these meetings and hearings. 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems [UAS]—Broadcast Media.—The 

Committee urges the FAA to consider the important public interest 

role of credentialed newsgatherers in disseminating critical information to the public following major news events and natural disasters. The Committee further urges the FAA to immediately establish procedures to enable credentialed news and broadcast 

media, in coordination with public safety officials and Air Traffic 

Control if necessary, to use UAS to gather images and information 

and to inform the public and disseminate information during and 

following emergencies and natural disasters, including at night, 

over people and beyond the line of sight of the UAS operator. 
30 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems [UAS].—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 UAS before the completion of certain rules and planning requirements specified in the law. The 

Committee encourages the FAA to consider whether UAS test sites 

may be appropriate in assisting the Secretary in making determinations under section 333. The Committee also urges the FAA 

to communicate clearly with the UAS industry regarding its priorities for section 333 consideration. 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems—Electronic Registration.—The Committee supports the Federal Aviation Administration’s establishment of an electronic registration system through the Web or an 

app to register UAS, as opposed to the current paper-based FAA 

Aircraft Registry system for manned aircraft. The Committee believes that online, interactive education program links on the electronic registration process would provide the education necessary 

to reduce the risk of unknowing or negligent mistakes by recreational operators of small unmanned aircraft thus promoting 

aviation safety. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to include in its electronic registration system a link for registrants to 

undergo a suitable and interactive online education and training 

program. The Committee also directs the FAA to report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the FAA’s implementation of such online interactive training for registrants, including the number of registrants who have attempted and completed the training course and recommendations for any improvements or changes to this system within 120 days of enactment of 

this act. 

Commercial Space Launches.—The Committee understands that 

current FAA regulations requiring launch providers to clearly obtain insurance to cover property damage in the event of an accident 

fail to address the status of State and local property. With the 

rapid growth in the number of State spaceports over the last decade as well as anticipated growth over the next several years, the 

Committee believes the FAA should update regulations for those 

developments involving Federal property assigned to a State government, particularly those developments located at Federal 

ranges, the State government should qualify as a ‘‘contractor’’ or 

Government Launch Participant with the right to make claims 

under 14 CFR 440.9(d). 

Landing Strips.—The Committee finds that backcountry landing 

strips on Federal lands are important assets to the national aviation infrastructure. The Committee recommends the FAA assist 

Federal Land Managers, including but not limited to the Bureau 

of Land Management, United States Forest Service, and National 

Park Service in charting airstrips located on Federal Lands that 

are and may be useful for administrative, recreational, and emergency purposes. 

Contract Weather Observers.—The FAA’s Contract Weather Observer [CWO] program provides operationally-significant weather 

information and support to the entire aviation community. CWO 

safety professionals observe and report operationally-significant 

weather conditions at airports across the country. These trained 
31 

specialists augment the Automated Surface Observing System 

[ASOS], which detects and reports basic weather information for 

aviation and forecasting. 

The Committee has serious concerns about the FAA’s proposal to 

eliminate the CWO program at 57 of these airports and replace it 

with Limited Aviation Weather Reporting Services [LAWRS]. 

Under LAWRS, air traffic controllers, or airport staff, would be responsible for the accuracy of weather information at the 57 airports 

identified by the FAA. However, air traffic controllers already perform a critical role, managing separation of aircraft, and are required to remain inside of their towers. By law, weather observing 

would be their lowest priority duty. Adding this responsibility to 

the other important duties of air traffic controllers would seriously 

degrade the speed and accuracy of operationally-significant weather observations and reduce air traffic control coverage, particularly 

at a time when air traffic controller staffing shortages are a continuing issue for the FAA. 

The Committee is also concerned that, to come to its determination on eliminating CWOs at 57 airports, the FAA removed the frequency of thunderstorms and low visibility as considerations for 

which airports receive CWO service, without soliciting or receiving 

sufficient stakeholder input. These types of conditions create serious safety hazards that should have been explored by all stakeholders and adequately taken into account by the FAA in its decision-making processes. 

Accordingly, the Committee directs the FAA to conduct a comprehensive study, with public and stakeholder input, and issue a 

report examining of all safety risks, hazard effects, and operational 

effects on airlines and other stakeholders that could result from 

loss of CWO services at the 57 airports currently targeted for the 

loss of service. The Committee further directs the FAA to identify 

how these targeted airports will accurately report rapidly changing 

severe weather conditions including thunderstorms, lightning, fog, 

visibility, cloud layers and ceilings, ice pellets, and freezing rain/ 

drizzle without contract weather observers and include the process 

through which FAA analyzed the safety hazards associated with 

eliminating the program. Additionally, the Committee directs the 

FAA to provide this report to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations within 30 days of its completion. 

Tarmac Vehicle Safety.—The Committee notes that there is no 

national standard that requires markings on airport vehicles and 

equipment that operate in busy night time conditions. The Committee directs the FAA to study one large hub airport, one medium 

hub airport, and one small hub airport to determine whether national standards for conspicuity of surface vehicles operating at airports are necessary. The FAA is directed to report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations its finding and recommendations within 1 year after enactment of this act. 

NextGen—Performance Goals.—NextGen implementation is critical for the United States to remain the global leader in safe and 

efficient air traffic control. Establishing performance objectives and 

holding the NextGen Office accountable to those objectives is critical in timely implementation. Therefore, the Committee directs the 

FAA’s NextGen Advisory Committee to establish annual perform-
32 

ance objectives for the implementation of NextGen and report to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 

days of enactment of this act. 

Medical Kits.—The Senate’s Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016 includes a provision requiring the Administrator to evaluate and revise emergency medical equipment requirements. The Committee strongly encourages the FAA to examine current policy regarding the supplies currently required in the 

Emergency Medical Kits [EMKs], including epinephrine autoinjectors. 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $2,855,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 2,838,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,838,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Facilities and Equipment appropriation provides funding for 

modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway facilities, 

equipment, and systems. The appropriation also finances major 

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

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

demands of aeronautical activity and remain in accordance with 

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

capital investment plan [CIP]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,838,000,000 

for the Facilities and Equipment account of the FAA. The recommended level is equal to the budget request and $17,000,000 

below the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

Capital Investment Plan.—In fiscal year 2016, the Committee included a provision that lowered the appropriation for FAA’s facilities and equipment by $100,000 for each day the agency was late 

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

plan by the deadline. 

Budget Activities Format.—The Committee directs that the fiscal 

year 2018 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: 
33 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2016 enacted 2017 estimate 

Activity 1—Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation: 

Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping ..... $21,300,000 $24,800,000 $24,800,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Improvement ................................................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory 

Sustainment ............................................................... 19,050,000 19,000,000 19,000,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Infrastructure 

Sustainment ............................................................... 12,200,000 12,200,000 12,200,000 

Separation Management Portfolio .................................. 31,500,000 25,800,000 25,800,000 

Improved Surface Portfolio ............................................. 17,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 

On Demand NAS Portfolio ............................................... 11,000,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 

Environment Portfolio ...................................................... 1,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Improved Multiple Runway Operations Portfolio ............ 8,000,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 

NAS Infrastructure Portfolio ............................................ 11,000,000 17,660,000 17,660,000 

NextGen Support Portfolio ............................................... 10,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 

Performance Based Navigation & Metroplex Portfolio ... 13,000,000 17,500,000 17,500,000 

Total Activity 1 ........................................................... 156,050,000 146,960,000 146,960,000 

Activity 2—Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment: 

a. En Route Programs: 

En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM]—System 

Enhancements and Tech Refresh .............................. 79,400,000 78,000,000 78,000,000 

En Route Communications Gateway [ECG] .................... 2,650,000 2,650,000 2,650,000 

Next Generation Weather Radar [NEXRAD]—Provide ..... 6,500,000 6,300,000 6,300,000 

Air Route Traffic Control Center [ARTCC] & Combined 

Control Facility [CCF] Building Improvements ........... 74,200,000 74,870,000 74,870,000 

Air Traffic Management [ATM] ....................................... 13,700,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 

Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure .................... 11,750,000 8,750,000 8,750,000 

Air Traffic Control En Route Radar Facilities Improvements .......................................................................... 5,810,000 5,800,000 5,800,000 

Voice Switching and Control System [VSCS] ................. 9,900,000 11,300,000 11,300,000 

Oceanic Automation System ........................................... 20,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 

Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/Ground Communications [NEXCOM] .............................................. 43,600,000 50,500,000 50,500,000 

System-Wide Information Management .......................... 37,400,000 28,800,000 28,800,000 

ADS–B NAS Wide Implementation .................................. 184,600,000 31,100,000 181,400,000 

Windshear Detection Service .......................................... 5,200,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 

Collaborative Air Traffic Management Technologies ...... 14,770,000 13,820,000 13,820,000 

Time Based Flow Management Portfolio ........................ 42,600,000 50,600,000 50,600,000 

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

NextGen Weather Processors ........................................... 7,000,000 27,800,000 27,800,000 

Airborne Collision Avoidance System X [ACASX] ............ 10,800,000 8,900,000 8,900,000 

Data Communications in Support of NG Air Transportation System ............................................................. 234,900,000 232,000,000 232,000,000 

Non-Continental United States [Non-CONUS] Automation ............................................................................. .............................. 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Subtotal En Route Programs ...................................... 805,780,000 683,690,000 833,990,000 

b. Terminal Programs: 

Airport Surface Detection Equipment—Model X [ASDE– 

X] ................................................................................ 13,500,000 8,400,000 8,400,000 

Terminal Doppler Weather Radar [TDWR]—Provide ...... 4,900,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System 

[STARS] (TAMR Phase 1) ............................................ 81,100,000 64,200,000 64,200,000 

Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program (TAMR Phase 3) ................................................ 159,350,000 108,900,000 108,900,000 

Terminal Automation Program ........................................ 7,700,000 7,700,000 7,700,000 

Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities—Replace ........... 45,500,000 58,800,000 58,800,000 

ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control [TRACON] Facilities—Improve ........................................................ 58,990,000 47,720,000 47,720,000 

Terminal Voice Switch Replacement [TVSR] .................. 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 
34 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2016 enacted 2017 estimate 

NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards 

Compliance ................................................................. 39,600,000 42,700,000 42,700,000 

Airport Surveillance Radar [ASR–9] ............................... 3,800,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 

Terminal Digital Radar [ASR–11] Technology Refresh 

and Mobile Airport Surveillance Radar [MASR] ......... 9,900,000 6,100,000 6,100,000 

Runway Status Lights ..................................................... 24,170,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 

National Airspace System Voice System [NVS] .............. 53,550,000 48,400,000 48,400,000 

Integrated Display System [IDS] ..................................... 23,300,000 7,700,000 7,700,000 

Remote Monitoring and Logging System [RMLS] ........... 4,700,000 9,900,000 9,900,000 

Mode S Service Life Extension Program [SLEP] ............. 16,300,000 37,900,000 37,900,000 

Surveillance Interface Modernization .............................. 23,000,000 26,800,000 26,800,000 

Improved Surface/TFDM Portfolio .................................... .............................. 42,200,000 42,200,000 

National Air Space [NAS] Voice Recorder Program 

[NVRP] ........................................................................ 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Integrated Terminal Weather System [ITWS] .................. 5,400,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Next Generation: Surveillance and Weather Radar Capability & Back-up Surveillance Capability ............... .............................. 6,000,000 6,000,000 

Flight and Interfacility Data Interface [FIDI] Modernization ............................................................................. 9,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 

Subtotal Terminal Programs ...................................... 592,760,000 561,720,000 561,720,000 

c. Flight Service Programs: 

Aviation Surface Observation System [ASOS] ................ 8,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 

Future Flight Services Program ...................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Alaska Flight Service Facility Modernization [AFSFM] .... 2,650,000 2,650,000 2,650,000 

Weather Camera Program ............................................... 1,000,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 

Subtotal Flight Service Programs .............................. 14,650,000 17,850,000 17,850,000 

d. Landing and Navigational Aids Program: 

VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range [VOR] with Distance 

Measuring Equipment [DME] ..................................... 4,500,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 

Instrument Landing System [ILS]—Establish ................ 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 

Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS] for GPS ......... 107,200,000 85,000,000 85,000,000 

Runway Visual Range [RVR] and Enhanced Low Visibility Operations [ELVO] ............................................. 6,000,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 

Approach Lighting System Improvement Program 

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

Distance Measuring Equipment [DME] ........................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Visual NAVAIDS—Establish/Expand ............................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Instrument Flight Procedures Automation [IFPA] ........... 3,371,000 9,400,000 9,400,000 

Navigation and Landing Aids—Service Life Extension 

Program [SLEP] .......................................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

VASI Replacement—Replace with Precision Approach 

Path Indicator ............................................................. 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 

GPS Civil Requirements .................................................. 15,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Runway Safety Areas—Navigational Mitigation ............ 30,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000 

Integrated Control and Monitoring System [ICMS]— 

NAVAIDS Monitoring Equipment ................................. .............................. 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Subtotal Landing and Navigational Aids Programs .. 189,071,000 146,900,000 146,900,000 

e. Other ATC Facilities Programs: 

Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Management ....... 18,700,000 22,700,000 22,700,000 

Unstaffed Infrastructure Sustainment ............................ 39,640,000 40,490,000 40,490,000 

Aircraft Related Equipment Program ............................. 9,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000 

Airport Cable Loop Systems—Sustained Support .......... 12,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 

Alaskan Satellite Telecommunications Infrastructure 

[ASTI] .......................................................................... 12,500,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 

Facilities Decommissioning ............................................ 6,000,000 6,200,000 6,200,000 

Electrical Power Systems—Sustain/Support .................. 125,000,000 105,000,000 105,000,000 

FAA Employee Housing and Life Safety Shelter System 

Service ........................................................................ 2,500,000 .............................. ..............................

Energy Management and Compliance [EMC] ................. 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 
35 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2016 enacted 2017 estimate 

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

FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure ......................... 1,000,000 10,360,000 10,360,000 

System Capacity, Planning, and Improvements ............. .............................. 6,500,000 6,500,000 

Subtotal Other ATC Facilities Programs .................... 229,940,000 221,250,000 221,250,000 

Total Activity 2 ........................................................... 1,832,201,000 1,631,410,000 1,781,710,000 

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

a. Support Equipment: 

Hazardous Materials Management ................................. 26,400,000 31,000,000 31,000,000 

Aviation Safety Analysis System [ASAS] ......................... 20,200,000 11,300,000 11,300,000 

Logistics Support Systems and Facilities [LSSF] ........... 4,000,000 .............................. ..............................

National Air Space [NAS] Recovery Communications 

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

Facility Security Risk Management ................................ 15,000,000 21,000,000 21,000,000 

Information Security ........................................................ 12,000,000 24,970,000 24,970,000 

System Approach for Safety Oversight [SASO] ............... 18,900,000 17,200,000 17,200,000 

Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment 

[ASKME] ...................................................................... 7,500,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 

Aerospace Medical Equipment Needs [AMEN] ................ 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

System Safety Management Portfolio ............................. 17,000,000 17,000,000 17,000,000 

National Test Equipment Program ................................. 4,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Mobile Assets Management Program ............................. 4,800,000 5,760,000 5,760,000 

Aerospace Medicine Safety Information Systems 

[AMSIS] ....................................................................... 3,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 

Tower Simulation System [TSS] Technology Refresh ...... 7,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Subtotal Support Equipment ...................................... 154,300,000 167,430,000 167,430,000 

b. Training, Equipment and Facilities: 

Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization .......... 15,200,000 14,000,000 14,000,000 

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

Subtotal Training, Equipment and Facilities ............. 16,700,000 15,500,000 15,500,000 

Total Activity 3 ........................................................... 171,000,000 182,930,000 182,930,000 

Activity 4—Facilities and Equipment Mission Support: 

a. System Support and Services: 

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

Program Support Leases ................................................. 46,700,000 46,600,000 46,600,000 

Logistics and Acquisition Support Services ................... 11,000,000 11,000,000 11,000,000 

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center Leases ................... 18,800,000 19,300,000 19,300,000 

Transition Engineering Support ...................................... 19,200,000 24,100,000 24,100,000 

Technical Support Services Contract [TSSC] .................. 23,000,000 23,000,000 23,000,000 

Resource Tracking Program [RTP] .................................. 4,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development 

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

Aeronautical Information Management Program ............ 5,000,000 10,400,000 10,400,000 

Cross Agency NextGen Management .............................. 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Total Activity 4 ........................................................... 225,700,000 237,400,000 237,400,000 

Activity 5—Personnel and Related Expenses: 

Personnel and Related Expenses .................................... 470,049,000 489,000,000 489,000,000 

Activity 6—Sustain ADS–B services and Wide Area Augmentation Services [WAAS] GEOs: 

ADS–B services and WAAS GEOs ................................... .............................. 150,300,000 ..............................

Subtotal All Activities ................................................. 2,855,000,000 2,838,000,000 2,838,000,000 

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

transmit an aircraft’s location to receivers installed on the ground 
36 

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. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes $181,400,000 for the implementation of ADS–B across the national airspace. 

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

which included $150,300,000 in Activity 2. The recommendation is 

also $3,200,000 less than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The 

Committee recommendation rejects the request to create a new Activity 6 and instead provides ADS–B resources for both activities 

within Activity 2. 

NextGen Separation Management Portfolio.—The Committee recommends $25,800,000 for the activities of the NextGen Separation 

Management Portfolio, which is equal to the budget estimate and 

$5,700,000 below the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. This amount 

includes $15,000,000 specifically for space-based ADS–B. For the 

past two fiscal years, the Committee has appropriated additional 

funding and urged the FAA to accelerate its planning and activities 

to keep pace with neighboring air navigation service providers 

[ANSPs], but the FAA has not shown any urgency. In fact, the 

Committee is aware that the FAA is postponing key decisions that 

will delay its schedule for incorporating space-based ADS–B and 

for implementing reduced oceanic aircraft separation. Despite 

delays by the FAA, the international aviation community is preparing to be able to use space-based ADS–B in 2018. The International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO] is in the process of approving a 15/15 nautical mile separation standard for oceanic traffic under surveillance for use in 2018, and foreign ANSPs in neighboring airspace, particularly in the busy North Atlantic, are taking 

the necessary steps to implement the ICAO reduced oceanic separation standard in 2018. In order to increase safety and enhance 

efficiency in U.S.-controlled oceanic airspace in the same timeframe 

as neighboring ANSPs, the Committee directs the FAA to streamline its current Joint Resources Council strategy by making a final 

investment decision not later than September 2016 for the implementation of a 15/15 nautical mile oceanic separation capability by 

September 2018 and to provide this new surveillance capability in 

the same manner that terrestrial ADS–B surveillance is provided. 

Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS].—The Committee recognizes that the upcoming WAAS Dual Frequency Operations Segment 2 will implement dual frequency algorithms into the WAAS 

system and will provide the integrity validation required for safetyof-life applications. The Committee, therefore, directs the FAA to 

begin algorithm development in support of dual frequency GPS. As 

part of that effort, the Committee recommends that the FAA dedicate sufficient funding for definition, modelling, and prototyping in 

collaboration with the FAA systems engineering team as well as 

the original WAAS algorithm developer. This collaboration will ensure that the FAA has access to the expertise of the original algorithm developer who understands the end-to-end system impacts 
37 

for algorithm changes, and who has a vested interest in solving 

this problem expeditiously. 

Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Range.—The Committee 

is aware of efforts underway to address the rationalization and recapitalization of aging en route navigational aids. These systems 

are critical to the safety, resiliency, and on-going operations of both 

civilian and military air navigation. The Committee directs the 

FAA to move ahead with the issuance of a request for proposals to 

implement a service-based procurement for Very High Frequency 

[VHF] Omni-Directional Range [VOR] and Tactical Air Navigation 

systems this fiscal year. The Committee supports the goal of ensuring that the greatest amount of savings are derived from the VOR 

MON program. Therefore, the Committee supports the outsourcing 

of total performance-based solutions to industry for the realization 

of highest efficiency gains and recommends a systems integrator 

approach to develop the most efficient decommissioning and maintenance support without tying the government to any single vendor. 

Terminal Automation Modernization and Replacement [TAMR].— 

The Committee is concerned that the FAA has not effectively proceeded with required software tools and decision aids for air traffic 

controllers to enable pilots to fully utilize NextGen capabilities, especially PBN, at all locations at all times in the NAS. Therefore, 

the Committee directs the FAA to develop and maintain a Standard Terminal Automation Replacement Systems [STARS] automation roadmap to prepare for an investment decision that identifies 

and prioritizes STARS enhancements that assist controllers during 

Performance Based Navigation and other NextGen technology operations. The roadmap should consist of a series of Work Packages 

that ensures utilization of STARS in support of NextGen technologies that are in the midst of nationwide deployment. The roadmap should describe the capabilities that will be developed and explain the benefits to controllers and airspace users. The Committee 

directs FAA to describe how they intend to maximize the taxpayer 

investments in STARS to ensure that NextGen technologies, to include PBN, ADS–B, weather products, Data Comm, and Terminal 

Flight Data Manager, are fully integrated in a timely manner so 

as to maximize user and FAA investment in NextGen technologies. 

Military Operations Areas.—The Committee finds that radar and 

future NextGen systems capable of controlling airspace down to 

500 feet above ground level enhances aviation safety in Military 

Operations Areas that overlay public use airports with more than 

5,000 operations per year. The Committee recommends that the 

FAA utilize existing resources to promptly provide radar or 

NextGen capability in such areas. 

Approach Lighting.—The Committee notes the benefit of enhanced approach lighting systems that improve safety and reliability especially in areas with challenging approaches in nonradar environments, with mountainous terrain and inclement 

weather conditions where use of conventional navigational aids do 

not allow for a close-in low approach. The Committee directs FAA 

to consider these factors in selecting projects for funding in the Approach Lighting System Improvement Program. 
38 

Aging Facilities.—The Committee instructs FAA to work to address aging and antiquated air traffic control facilities that it 

leases from airport authorities to ensure they are fully compliant 

with current building codes consistent with being occupied by air 

traffic controllers. The Committee recognizes that this, in many 

cases, may require the construction of new air traffic facilities to 

replace existing ones. Recognizing continual funding constraints, 

the Committee instructs FAA to utilize creative financing options 

and to include consideration of long-term cost recovery leases, 

when conditions warrant the construction of new air traffic control 

towers. 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $166,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 167,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 176,002,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

programs to improve the air traffic control system by increasing its 

safety and capacity, as well as reducing the environmental impacts 

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

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

and to promote flight safety through improvements in facilities, 

equipment, techniques, and procedures to ensure that the system 

will safely and efficiently handle future volumes of aircraft traffic. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $176,002,000 for the FAA’s Research, Engineering, and Development activities. The recommended 

level of funding is $8,502,000 more than the budget request and 

$10,002,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

A table showing the fiscal year 2016 enacted level, the fiscal year 

2017 budget estimate and the Committee recommendation follows: 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2016 enacted 2017 estimate 

Safety: 

Fire research and safety ................................................................... $6,000,000 $7,925,000 $7,925,000 

Propulsion and fuel systems ............................................................ 2,034,000 2,574,000 2,074,000 

Advanced materials/structural safety .............................................. 7,409,000 4,113,000 9,409,000 

Aircraft icing /digital system safety ................................................ 5,500,000 5,102,000 5,102,000 

Continued airworthiness ................................................................... 8,987,000 10,269,000 9,669,000 

Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research ............................ 1,433,000 1,528,000 1,428,000 

Flightdeck/maintenance/system integration human factors ............ 5,000,000 8,513,000 7,913,000 

System safety management ............................................................. 6,063,000 7,000,000 6,500,000 

Air traffic control/technical operations human factors ................... 5,410,000 6,165,000 6,165,000 

Aeromedical research ........................................................................ 8,467,000 9,538,000 9,038,000 

Weather program .............................................................................. 15,031,000 17,976,000 14,976,000 

Unmanned aircraft systems research .............................................. 17,635,000 8,422,000 18,420,000 

NextGen—Alternative fuels for general aviation ............................. 7,000,000 5,792,000 7,000,000 
39 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2016 enacted 2017 estimate 

Commercial Space Transportation Security ...................................... ........................ 2,953,000 2,473,000 

Economic competitiveness: 

NextGen—Wake turbulence .............................................................. 8,541,000 8,609,000 7,759,000 

NextGen—Air ground integration human factors ............................ 8,000,000 8,575,000 6,675,000 

NextGen—Weather technology in the cockpit .................................. 4,048,000 4,059,000 3,509,000 

NextGen Information Security ........................................................... ........................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Commercial Space Transportation Safety ........................................ 2,000,000 ........................ ........................

Environmental sustainability: 

Environment and energy ................................................................... 16,074,000 15,013,000 16,013,000 

NextGen—Environmental research aircraft technologies, fuels, 

and metrics .................................................................................. 25,823,000 26,174,000 27,174,000 

Mission support: 

System planning and resource management ................................... 2,100,000 2,788,000 2,368,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center ................................................. 3,445,000 3,412,000 3,412,000 

Total .............................................................................................. 166,000,000 167,500,000 176,002,000 

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety.—The Committee is encouraged by the capabilities that stitched unitized composites can 

provide to the aerospace industry. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes $9,409,000 for Advanced Materials and 

Structural Safety, an increase of $2,000,000 over the fiscal year 

2016 enacted level. This increase over the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level is provided for the FAA to work with public and private partners who provide leading-edge research, development and testing of 

composite materials and structures. 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems [UAS] Research—Center of Excellence.—The Committee recognizes the valuable role of the Center 

of Excellence in advising the FAA as it attempts to address a host 

of research challenges associated with the integration of UAS into 

the National Airspace System. The Committee recommendation includes $18,420,000 for UAS research, an increase of $9,998,000 

above the budget request and $785,000 more than the fiscal year 

2016 enacted level. Of the funds provided for UAS research, 

$10,000,000 is directed to support the expanded role of the Center 

of Excellence in areas of UAS research, including cybersecurity, agricultural applications, beyond visual line of sight technology, and 

continuation of air and ground collision studies. Furthermore, the 

Center of Excellence shall establish a UAS safety research facility 

to study appropriate safety standards for UAS and to develop and 

validate certification standards for such systems. The Committee 

notes that even with this additional funding, private sector contributions to the Center will likely continue to outmatch Federal 

investment. 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research—Test Sites.—The Committee notes that integration of UAS into the National Airspace 

System remains a national priority with the potential to increase 

public safety and bring economic benefits to a wide range of industries, including agriculture. Of the amount provided for UAS research, the Committee expects UAS research to be conducted as 

part of the Center of Excellence to be performed at, a minimum of, 

one of the FAA-designated UAS test sites, to evaluate different 

counter UAS technologies and develop recommendations for secur-
40 

ing data links, including GPS and control links, that could drive 

UAS engineering standards development. The Committee also directs the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center to use these 

test sites in conducting its research and operational tests. The 

funding provided for the Tech Center may be used to support the 

center’s research activities and operational tests conducted at the 

test sites. 

Alternative Fuels for General Aviation.—The Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 for research that supports alternative fuels for general aviation. This funding level is $1,208,000 

above the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level. 

Environmental Sustainability.—The Committee recommendation 

includes a total of $43,187,000 for research related to environmental sustainability, which is $2,000,000 above the budget request and $1,290,000 above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. This 

total includes $16,013,000 under the ‘‘Environment and energy’’ 

and another $27,174,000 under ‘‘NextGen—Environmental research 

aircraft technologies, fuels, and metrics.’’ 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems—[UAS] Traffic Management.—The 

Committee directs the FAA to conduct research and development 

on the design, testing, and implementation of a UAS Traffic Management [UTM] system in the National Airspace to ensure the 

safety, reliability, security, and accountability of small UAS operation. The Committee further directs FAA to participate in partnership with the ongoing UTM work conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the FAA’s Pathfinder projects, 

and the FAA’s Assure program as part of the Center for Excellence. 

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 2016 enacted 2017 estimate 

Resources from the Airport and Airway Trust 

Fund: 

Limitation on obligations ............................. $3,350,000,000 $2,900,000,000 $3,350,000,000 

Liquidation of contract authorization .......... 3,600,000,000 3,500,000,000 3,750,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Funding for Grants-in-Aid for airports pays for capital improvements at the Nation’s airports, including those investments that 

emphasize capacity development, safety improvements, and security needs. Other priority areas for funding under this program include improvements to runway safety areas that do not conform to 

FAA standards, investments that are designed to reduce runway 

incursions, and aircraft noise compatibility planning and programs. 
41 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$3,350,000,000 for Grants-in-Aid for airports for fiscal year 2017. 

The recommended limitation on obligations is equal to the enacted 

level for fiscal year 2016, and $450,000,000 more than the budget 

request. Under the request, large commercial airports no longer receive formula grants from the program, but they would be allowed 

to raise their passenger facility charges to finance capital improvements. The Committee notes that an increase to passenger facility 

charges was considered as part of the debate over the current FAA 

authorization bill. 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 $3,750,000,000 for Grants-in-Aid for Airports. The 

recommended level is $250,000,000 more than the budget estimate 

and $150,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

This appropriation is sufficient to cover the liquidation of all obligations incurred pursuant to the limitation on obligations set forward 

in the bill. 

Finally, the Committee recommendation includes a rescission of 

any contract authority that would be created under section 48112 

in fiscal year 2017. This rescission would not affect the baseline set 

by the Congressional Budget Office. 

Administrative Expenses.—The Committee recommends 

$107,691,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding level 

is equal to the budget request and $591,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2016 enacted level. 

Airport Cooperative Research.—The Committee recommends 

$15,000,000 for the Airport Cooperative Research program. This 

funding level is equal to the budget estimate and the fiscal year 

2016 enacted level. 

Airport Technology.—The Committee recommends $31,375,000 

for Airport Technology Research. This funding level is equal to the 

budget request and $375,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 level. 

Small Community Air Service Development Program 

[SCASDP].—The Committee recommends $10,000,000. This funding level is $5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

The budget request included no funds for this program for fiscal 

year 2017. 

Allocation of Resources.—The Committee recognizes many States 

have short construction seasons due to inclement weather and require certainty about airport grant allocations when making planning decisions. FAA is encouraged to work expeditiously to make 

entitlement and discretionary grant allocations, in order to provide 

certainty to northern State airports. The Committee also understands that certain physical topography, environments, and circumstances prohibit certain existing airports that are in critical 

need of expansion due to their essential economic impact on their 

surrounding communities from expanding, and as such are required to physically relocate their premises. Therefore, the Com-
42 

mittee directs the FAA to ensure sufficient funding is available to 

relocate these airports in a timely and expedited manner. 

General Aviation Runways.—The Committee instructs FAA to 

give greater consideration to projects at public-use airports that 

will relocate existing general aviation runways that do not meet 

current FAA safety standards related to runway/taxiway separation distances, safety area and object free area requirements, and 

obstruction standards, especially in cases where the existing runway has deteriorated such that it is at the end of its service life 

and rehabilitation is no longer cost effective. 

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 2017. 

Section 111 prohibits funds in this act from being used to adopt 

guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide the 

FAA ‘‘without cost’’ buildings, maintenance, or space for FAA services. The prohibition does not apply to negotiations between the 

FAA and airport sponsors concerning ‘‘below market’’ rates for such 

services or to grant assurances that require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the FAA for air traffic control facilities. 

Section 112 permits the Administrator to reimburse FAA appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) as 

fees are collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 45303. 

Section 113 allows funds received to reimburse the FAA for providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities to be 

credited to the Operations account. 

Section 114 prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium pay 

except in those cases where the individual actually worked on a 

Sunday. 

Section 115 prohibits the FAA from using funds provided in the 

bill to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates through a Government-issued credit card. 

Section 116 allows all airports experiencing the required level of 

boardings through charter and scheduled air service to be eligible 

for funds under 49 U.S.C. 47114(c). 

Section 117 requires approval from the Assistant Secretary for 

Administration of the Department of Transportation for retention 

bonuses for any FAA employee. 

Section 118 requires that, upon request by a private owner or operator of an aircraft, the Secretary block the display of that owner 

or operator’s aircraft registration number in the Aircraft Situational Display to Industry program. 

Section 119 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and expenses 

of more than nine political and Presidential appointees in the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Section 119A requires the FAA to conduct public outreach and 

provide justification to the Committee before increasing fees under 

section 44721 of title 49, United States Code. 

Section 119B 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. 
43 

Section 119C prohibits funds from being used to change weight 

restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro Airport in New 

Jersey. 

Section 119D prohibits funds from being used to withhold from 

consideration and approval any application for participation in the 

Contract Tower Program, pending as of January 1, 2016, including 

applications from Cost-share Program participants if the Administrator determines such tower is eligible under the criteria set forth 

in the Federal Aviation report, Establishment and Discontinuance 

Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers (FAA–APO–90–7). 

Section 119E allows airports that met the 10,000 enplanement 

qualification for AIP funds in calendar year 2012 to continue to receive AIP funds in fiscal year 2017. 

Section 119F modifies the Federal share for a primary non-hub 

airport located in a public lands State within 15 miles from the 

border of another public lands State to use the greater of the two 

State’s Federal share. 

Section 119G directs the FAA to develop a joint plan and carry 

out research with NASA and the Departments of Energy and Agriculture facilitating research in aviation jet fuel areas and encourages Federal agencies that are signatories to Farm to Fly 2 to collaborate with each other in the leadership and funding of research 

at the center. 

Section 119H clarifies the eligibility of unmanned aircraft system 

test sites. 

Section 119I allows for the exchange of passenger facility charges 

between airports to meet the terms and conditions of a transfer 

agreement. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA] is, in partnership with State and local governments, to 

foster the development of a safe, efficient, and effective highway 

and intermodal system nationwide including access to and within 

national forests, national parks, Indian lands, and other public 

lands. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of 

$41,794,100,000 is provided for the activities of the Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2017. The recommendation is 

$7,275,000,000 less than the budget request and $1,305,900,000 

less than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The recommendation 

does not include funding for the 21st century clean transportation 

plan investments, but does rescind $2,211,000,000 in unused contract authority. The following table summarizes the Committee’s 

recommendations: 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2016 enacted 2017 estimate 

Federal-aid highways program obligation 

limitation .................................................. $42,361,000,000 $43,266,100,000 $43,266,100,000 
44 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2016 enacted 2017 estimate 

Contract authority exempt from the obligation limitation ........................................... 739,000,000 739,000,000 739,000,000 

21st century clean transportation plan investments ................................................. ............................ 7,500,000,000 ............................

Rescission of unused contract authority ...... ............................ ¥2,436,000,000 ¥2,211,000,000 

Total ................................................. 43,100,000,000 49,069,100,000 41,794,100,000 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation, 2016 ..................................................................................... $429,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 435,795,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 435,795,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$435,795,000 for administrative expenses of the agency, of which 

$2,500,000 is for administrative expenses of the Appalachian Regional Commission in accordance with section 104 of title 23, 

United States Code. This limitation is equal to the budget request 

and $6,795,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2016 ..................................................................................... $42,361,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 43,266,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 43,266,100,000 

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. 
45 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2017 obligations 

to $43,266,100,000, which is equal to the budget request, excluding 

the 21st century clean transportation investments, and 

$905,100,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level for the 

Federal-aid highway program. This funding level is consistent with 

current funding levels under the most recent authorization law, the 

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation [FAST] Act. In addition, 

the bill includes a provision that allows the FHWA to collect and 

spend fees in order to pay for the services of expert firms in the 

field of municipal and project finance to assist the agency in the 

provision of credit instruments. 

Autonomous Vehicles.—The Committee is aware of the potential 

impact of autonomous vehicles on all segments of the economy, and 

suggests the Secretary conduct studies to assess the economic effects of these vehicles. The Department is encouraged to use funds 

authorized to carry out section 503(b) and 503 (c) of title 23, United 

States Code to commission the Transportation Research Board of 

the National Academies of Sciences to conduct a study on the cost 

benefit impact of multimodal autonomous self-driving vehicles. The 

Committee suggests that the study focus on impact of autonomous 

vehicles on motor carriers, ports, transit, and related industries, 

and on the so-called crash economy that includes the insurance and 

healthcare industries. 

Job Order Contracting.—The Committee directs FHWA, within 

30 days of enactment of this act, to approve job order contracting, 

as currently allowed through the Special Experimental Projects No. 

14 Program, as an operational contracting technique for all Federal-aid Highway Program-funded projects. 

Corrosion Prevention.—The Committee directs FHWA to conduct 

a study comparing the cost effectiveness of industry-recognized corrosion prevention worker certifications on federally funded corrosion prevention bridge and overpass projects. The study shall compare no less than twelve currently obligated projects preserving the 

structure of bridges using corrosion prevention and mitigation systems, including at least six projects that utilize an industry recognized corrosion prevention worker standard and no less than six 

similar currently obligated projects that do not use an industry recognized worker standard. The study shall include a comparison of 

the time to complete projects, initial quality control reports, and 

budgetary overruns. FHWA shall submit the results from its study 

in a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

no more than 2 years after enactment of this act. 

Permeable Pavements.—The Committee encourages the Secretary 

to accelerate research, demonstration, and deployment for permeable pavements to achieve flood mitigation, pollutant reduction, 

stormwater runoff reduction and conservation. Projects may include roadway shoulder load testing and documenting life-cycle cost 

efficiency. 

Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil-Integrated Bridge System.—The 

Committee supports research and deployment to capitalize on investment in the Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge 

System Program. The Committee encourages the Secretary to com-
46 

plete cost studies of geosynthetic-reinforced soil abutments/walls 

and to distribute reports to State DOTs, consider AID Demonstration grants to deploy innovations in geosynthetic-reinforced abutments, segmental sound barriers, and flooding scour countermeasures, and address technical specifications for segmental face 

durability and geosynthetics connections. 

Planning for Better Commutes.—The Committee recognizes the 

role that employers and the private sector can play in expanding 

options for commuters. The Committee directs FHWA to continue 

its efforts related to technical assistance for metropolitan planning 

organizations [MPOs] to improve planning engagement with employers and the private sector, and to explore innovative ways to 

mitigate congestion. 

Composites.—The Committee recognizes that composites can improve the performance of bridge structures and prove valuable for 

other uses, including road signs. Proven benefits of composites include strength, low weight, corrosion resistance, and long-term durability, and these characteristics can lead to improved performance for bridges and other structures. The Committee urges the 

Department to use composites in demonstration projects and recommends the continued research, development, and regulatory reform needed, if any, to clear hurdles for deploying composites into 

our highway and bridge system. 

Highway Guide Signs Font.—In early 2016, the FHWA notified 

State transportation agencies of its intention to rescind approval 

for the use of an alternate font on highway guide signs. The decision appears to have been made without any public consideration 

or input, immediately impacting an estimated 26 States that have 

been given prior approval for alternate font use as a safe way to 

communicate with the traveling public. In order to fully consider 

the impact of this decision, FHWA is directed to suspend enforcement of action terminating interim approval of this alternate font 

for highway guide signs until the agency provides opportunity for 

public comment on this matter, and documents the safety and cost 

implications of this decision for affected States. FHWA is directed 

within 30 days after enactment of this act to brief the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations regarding the process it will 

undertake to receive public comment and further research this 

matter. 

Border Infrastructure.—Section 1437 of the FAST Act provided 

border State departments of transportation new opportunities to 

dedicate resources to infrastructure in the border region, including 

at our Nation’s critical border crossings and the roadway network 

often tasked with facilitating high volume commercial or passenger 

traffic. However, many projects within the land port of entry environment tend to fall outside traditional Federal planning requirements, which largely focus on resource needs for ‘‘on-system’’ infrastructure, including Interstates and the National Highway System. 

To ensure States are equipped to take on a more thorough and 

complete project selection process for resources dedicated under the 

provisions of section 1437 or otherwise allocated to the qualified 

border region projects, the Committee directs FHWA not less than 

45 days of enactment of this act to provide guidance to States that 

identifies best practices across border State transportation agencies 
47 

for considering and selecting projects within the range of eligible 

uses, at land port of entry. 

Environmental Reviews.—The Committee recognizes the Department’s efforts to implement the administratively related streamlining provisions included in the FAST Act. 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 the State governments, including its work with the State of 

Utah for a regional transportation, land use, natural resource and 

economic solution. The Committee encourages the Department to 

continue participating in the streamlined facilitation of the environmental impact processes for regional and national transportation projects in conjunction with multiple Federal agencies, diverse public and private interests including State and local governments and public interest groups. 

Dynamic Highway Message Signs.—The Committee believes it is 

essential to use all effective means to remind motorists of current 

traffic safety laws and safe driving practices. One available lowcost tool is the dynamic highway message signs that are in place 

on major roads throughout the country. The Committee commends 

States currently using these signs, some in creative ways, to deliver safe driving messages. In order to further take advantage of 

this communication system, the Committee directs FHWA to coordinate with NHTSA, State departments of transportation, and 

State highway safety offices, to increase State participation in the 

use of dynamic highway message signs to help save lives and prevent injuries. A particular focus should be to assure that these 

signs maximize important and effective national safety emphasis 

campaigns that are also supported by national paid media, such as 

‘‘Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over’’, ‘‘Click It or Ticket’’, and National 

Distracted Driving Awareness Month, in order to create a multiplier effect for the ongoing investment in these campaigns. The 

signs can also be effective in warning caregivers about the dangers 

of leaving young children alone in vehicles during the hot weather 

months. The Committee further directs FHWA to report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 120 days 

of enactment of this act on the number of motorists exposed to dynamic highway message signs on a daily basis, the extent to which 

States use such signs to support safety activities, possible impediments to using such signs for traffic safety, and plans for broader 

deployment of such signs. 

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 2016 enacted 2017 estimate 

Formula Programs 

Alabama ......................................................................................... $718,193,418 $734,106,078 $734,106,078 

Alaska ............................................................................................ 453,571,291 463,600,423 463,600,423 

Arizona ........................................................................................... 689,276,768 704,623,520 704,623,520 

Arkansas ........................................................................................ 479,215,508 489,814,257 489,814,257 
48 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2016 enacted 2017 estimate 

California ....................................................................................... 3,413,411,372 3,488,766,125 3,488,766,125 

Colorado ......................................................................................... 496,238,608 507,202,747 507,202,747 

Connecticut .................................................................................... 464,764,375 475,064,913 475,064,913 

Delaware ........................................................................................ 156,917,461 160,385,014 160,385,014 

District of Columbia ...................................................................... 151,196,174 154,542,947 154,542,947 

Florida ............................................................................................ 1,793,513,693 1,833,252,518 1,833,252,518 

Georgia ........................................................................................... 1,216,877,969 1,243,960,726 1,243,960,726 

Hawaii ............................................................................................ 153,423,443 156,808,517 156,808,517 

Idaho .............................................................................................. 270,912,348 276,911,555 276,911,555 

Illinois ............................................................................................ 1,347,592,985 1,377,414,613 1,377,414,613 

Indiana ........................................................................................... 879,470,562 898,990,495 898,990,495 

Iowa ................................................................................................ 465,298,970 475,606,951 475,606,951 

Kansas ........................................................................................... 357,802,906 365,729,026 365,729,026 

Kentucky ......................................................................................... 629,032,323 642,968,189 642,968,189 

Louisiana ........................................................................................ 634,550,564 648,561,596 648,561,596 

Maine ............................................................................................. 171,136,207 174,918,814 174,918,814 

Maryland ........................................................................................ 569,712,716 582,317,695 582,317,695 

Massachusetts ............................................................................... 573,705,651 586,445,248 586,445,248

Michigan ........................................................................................ 997,792,873 1,019,877,126 1,019,877,126 

Minnesota ....................................................................................... 604,304,634 617,663,548 617,663,548 

Mississippi ..................................................................................... 447,647,643 457,548,275 457,548,275 

Missouri .......................................................................................... 876,358,184 895,739,463 895,739,463 

Montana ......................................................................................... 379,981,225 388,383,353 388,383,353 

Nebraska ........................................................................................ 273,727,580 279,790,090 279,790,090 

Nevada ........................................................................................... 344,238,874 351,855,485 351,855,485 

New Hampshire .............................................................................. 156,557,427 160,023,005 160,023,005 

New Jersey ...................................................................................... 943,518,427 964,461,918 964,461,918 

New Mexico .................................................................................... 340,020,446 347,539,606 347,539,606 

New York ........................................................................................ 1,592,003,170 1,627,212,411 1,627,212,411 

North Carolina ................................................................................ 987,932,334 1,009,807,940 1,009,807,940 

North Dakota .................................................................................. 230,006,417 235,091,606 235,091,606 

Ohio ................................................................................................ 1,216,610,017 1,243,449,331 1,243,449,331 

Oklahoma ....................................................................................... 600,405,162 613,707,231 613,707,231 

Oregon ............................................................................................ 463,004,294 473,241,333 473,241,333 

Pennsylvania .................................................................................. 1,554,665,862 1,589,080,502 1,589,080,502 

Rhode Island .................................................................................. 202,671,917 207,152,256 207,152,256 

South Carolina ............................................................................... 633,948,635 647,993,466 647,993,466 

South Dakota ................................................................................. 259,758,519 265,534,977 265,534,977 

Tennessee ....................................................................................... 782,891,123 800,199,870 800,199,870 

Texas .............................................................................................. 3,269,713,792 3,342,114,445 3,342,114,445 

Utah ............................................................................................... 328,873,330 336,156,562 336,156,562 

Vermont .......................................................................................... 188,181,637 192,340,798 192,340,798 

Virginia ........................................................................................... 943,257,497 964,107,697 964,107,697 

Washington .................................................................................... 642,273,878 656,493,056 656,493,056 

West Virginia .................................................................................. 413,826,350 422,992,496 422,992,496 

Wisconsin ....................................................................................... 712,577,597 728,359,430 728,359,430 

Wyoming ......................................................................................... 232,000,764 237,121,473 237,121,473 

Subtotal ............................................................................ 36,704,564,920 37,517,030,716 37,517,030,716 

Allocated programs ........................................................................ 5,250,644,793 5,334,321,057 5,334,321,057 

Sections 154 and 164 Penalties ................................................... 382,356,953 391,314,893 391,314,893 

High Risk Rural Roads Special Rule ............................................. 23,433,334 23,433,334 23,433,334 

Total .................................................................................. 42,361,000,000 43,266,100,000 43,266,100,000 
49 

LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $43,100,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 44,005,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 44,005,100,000 

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 highway program is provided under this heading. This liquidating authority allows FHWA 

to follow through on commitments already allowed under current 

law; it does not provide the authority to enter into new commitments for Federal spending. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of 

$44,005,100,000. The recommended level is equal to the budget request and $905,100,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level. This level of liquidating authority is necessary to pay outstanding obligations from various highway accounts pursuant to 

this and prior appropriations acts. 

RESCISSION

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2017 ...........................................................................¥$2,436,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥2,211,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal-aid highway program currently has over $24 billion 

in unobligated balances of contract authority. The FAST Act rescinds $7.569 billion in unobligated balances of apportioned contract authority in fiscal year 2020. The FAST Act rescission encompasses most apportioned funds except: Appalachian Development 

Highway System Program, Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program, Safe Routes to School Program, Highway Safety Improvement Program, Railway-Highway Grade Crossings Program, Surface Transportation Program funds that are suballocated by population, and old set-asides for safety. The rescission amounts for 

each State and each program within such States are calculated 

based on unobligated balances of contract authority for programs 

subject to the rescission. 
50 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a rescission of $2,211,000,000. The 

recommended level is $225,000,000 less than the budget request 

and $2,211,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

The bill requires the rescission to be applied consistent with the rescission in the FAST Act. 

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 allows State DOTs to repurpose certain highway 

project funding to be used within 50 miles of its original designation. 

Section 125 requires 60-day notification for any grants for a 

project under 23 U.S.C. 117. 

Section 126 identifies a certain route as a high priority corridor 

on the national highway system and designates it as an Interstate 

route. 

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], the Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act [MAP–21], and the Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation [FAST] Act 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 
51 

motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and the public. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total level of $644,200,000 for obligations and liquidations from the Highway Trust Fund. This level 

is $150,000,000 less than the request and $63,800,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The recommendation does not include any funding for the 21st century clean transportation plan investments. 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2016 enacted 2017 estimate 

Motor Carrier Safety Operations & Programs ................................ 267,400,000 277,200,000 277,200,000 

Motor Carrier Safety Grants ........................................................... 313,000,000 367,000,000 367,000,000 

21st century clean transportation plan investments .................... ............................ 150,000,000 ............................

Total .................................................................................. 580,400,000 794,200,000 644,200,000 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2016 ..................................................................................... $267,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 277,200,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 277,200,000 

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 

$277,200,000 for FMCSA’s Operations and Programs. The recommendation is $9,800,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level and equal to the budget request. Of the total limitation on obligations, $9,180,000 is for research and technology. 

Bus Lease and Interchange Rule.—On March 16, 2016, FMCSA 

announced it was extending the compliance date for its final rule 

concerning the lease and interchange of passenger carrying motor 

vehicles [Docket No. FMCSA–2013–0103], based on issues raised in 

numerous petitions for reconsideration. The Committee is pleased 
52 

by this action, and directs FMCSA to expeditiously complete its review and modify the rule to resolve the issues raised, and ensure 

the rule appropriately targets unsafe passenger carriers without 

unduly interfering in compliant business operations. The Committee is confident FMCSA can resolve all outstanding issues prior 

to January 2018; however, if it is unable to effect a modification 

of the rule within this time period, the Committee expects FMCSA 

to grant an additional extension, until the rule can be modified. 

Heavy Vehicle Speed Limiters.—A coalition of trucking industry 

and safety advocates petitioned the Department in 2006 to initiate 

a rulemaking mandating all class 7 and 8 trucks to have their top 

speeds electronically limited to no more than 65 miles per hour. 

NHTSA finally granted this petition in 2011 and has been developing a proposed rulemaking with FMCSA that would consider new 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the installation of 

speed limiting devices. The agency has stated that the rulemaking 

would have minimal costs and decrease fatal crashes, but continues 

to delay publication of the proposed rule. The Committee directs 

the Department to issue its proposed rule by April 28, 2016. 

High-Risk Carriers.—Under FMCSA regulations, carriers identified as high risk must have a compliance review conducted within 

1 year. In fiscal year 2015, the Committee provided additional resources to improve the agency’s capacity to better target high risk 

carriers and to conduct better oversight of carriers operating under 

a consent decree. In fiscal year 2014, FMCSA met this requirement 

for only 84 percent of the mandatory carriers due to resources 

being diverted for the Enhanced Investigation Techniques initiative. The Committee expects the number of mandatory high risk inspections to increase with the improved staff training and enhanced IT systems. The Committee directs the agency to provide 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with an updated report on its ability to meet its requirements to evaluate 

mandatory carriers by April 15, 2017 for the preceding fiscal year. 

Natural Gas Vehicle Regulations.—The Committee recognizes the 

significant growth and value in the market for natural gas as a 

transportation fuel and is aware that certain DOT regulations that 

address the safety of natural gas vehicles have not been updated 

to keep pace with new developments and the advancement of natural gas vehicles. Accordingly, the Department is encouraged to develop new safety regulations and inspection procedures for liquefied 

natural gas [LNG] fuel tanks and fuel systems on commercial 

motor vehicles, and revise and harmonize requirements for compressed natural gas [CNG] cylinders that address the inspection of 

such cylinders. The Department is also encouraged to work with industry and manufacturers to clarify and address the ability of bus 

manufacturers to continue to deploy buses that have roof-top 

mounted CNG cylinders. In addition, as there are no Federal regulations that prohibit the interstate movement of natural gas vehicles as it relates to the fuel stored onboard for motive power, the 

Secretary is encouraged to clarify through guidance that rules restricting access to bridges and tunnels in the case of an alternative 

fuel vehicle should not be any more restrictive than those addressing gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles, unless there is a determination of a significant risk to safety. 
53 

Windshield Mounted Safety Technologies.—The Committee is 

aware of current FMCSA regulations that limit the ability of commercial motor carriers to voluntarily mount vehicle safety technologies on windshields. Due to the significant safety benefits 

brought about by certain types of windshield mounted technologies, 

the Committee directed the DOT, in Senate Report 114–75, to move 

forward in prescribing regulations to permanently allow the use of 

such technologies. Congress later codified this directive into law in 

section 5301 of the FAST Act. The Committee is eager to see the 

implementation of section 5301 and is hopeful that the Department 

will meet the deadline set out in law. Accordingly, the Committee 

directs FMCSA to provide an update on the status of this effort 

within 30 days of enactment of this act. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2016 ..................................................................................... $313,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 367,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 367,000,000 

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 

$367,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended 

limitation is $54,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level and equal to 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. 

Amount 

Motor carrier safety assistance program [MCSAP] ............................................................................................. $292,600,000 

High priority activities program ........................................................................................................................... 42,200,000 

Commercial motor vehicle operator grants program .......................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Commercial driver’s license program implementation program ......................................................................... 31,200,000 
54 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Section 130 subjects the funds in this act to section 350 of Public 

Law 107–87 in order to ensure the safety of all cross-border long 

haul operations conducted by Mexican-domiciled commercial carriers. 

Section 131 makes a technical correction to the hours of service 

provision in section 133 of division L of title I of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114–113. If the 34-hour restart rule in effect on June 30, 2013, is restored, then drivers who 

use the 34-hour restart may not drive after being on duty more 

than 73 hours in a 7-day period. 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] 

was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation in March of 1970 to administer motor vehicle and highway safety programs. It was the successor agency to 

the National Highway Safety Bureau, which was housed in the 

Federal Highway Administration. NHTSA is responsible for motor 

vehicle safety, highway safety behavioral programs, motor vehicle 

information, and automobile fuel economy programs. 

NHTSA’s mission is to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic 

losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. To accomplish these 

goals, NHTSA establishes and enforces safety performance standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, investigates 

safety defects in motor vehicles, and conducts research on driver 

behavior and traffic safety. NHTSA provides grants and technical 

assistance to State and local governments to enable them to conduct effective local highway safety programs. Together with State 

and local partners, NHTSA works to reduce the threat of drunk, 

impaired, and distracted driving, and to promote policies and devices with demonstrated safety benefits including helmets, child 

safety seats, airbags, and graduated license. NHTSA establishes 

and ensures compliance with fuel economy standards, investigates 

odometer fraud, establishes and enforces vehicle anti-theft regulations, and provides consumer information on a variety of motor vehicle safety topics. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $891,347,000, including both budget 

authority and limitations on the obligation of contract authority. 

This funding is $289,925,000 less than the President’s request and 

$22,315,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The recommendation does not include any funding for the 21st century 

clean transportation plan investments. 

The following table summarizes Committee recommendations: 

General fund Highway trust fund Total 

Appropriation 2016 .................................................................................... $152,800,000 $716,232,000 $869,032,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 .............................................................................. ........................ 1,181,272,000 1,181,272,000 
55 

General fund Highway trust fund Total 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 160,075,000 731,272,000 891,347,000 

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. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

General fund Highway trust 

fund Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2016 ................................................................. $152,800,000 $142,900,000 $295,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 .............................................................................. ........................ 395,900,000 395,900,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 160,075,000 145,900,000 305,975,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $305,975,000 for Operations and Research, which is $89,925,000 less than the President’s budget request and $10,275,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level. Of the total amount recommended for Operations and Research, $160,075,000 is derived from the general fund and 

$145,900,000 is derived from the Highway Trust Fund. For vehicle 

safety research, the Committee recommendation includes 

$23,510,000 for rulemakings, $18,494,000 for enforcement, and 

$38,100,000 for research and analysis. For highway safety research 

and development, the Committee recommendation includes 

$56,143,000 for highway safety programs, and $42,993,000 for the 

National Center for Statistics and Analysis. The recommendation 

fully funds the annualization of staff provided in fiscal year 2016, 

but does not include funding for any new positions. 

Autonomous Vehicles.—The Committee believes that the development of autonomous vehicles and automated technologies can significantly reduce roadway fatalities and improve mobility options, 

particularly to rural America. The recommendation includes not 

less than $6,600,000 for vehicle electronics and emerging technologies and directs NHTSA to use these resources to ensure that 

potentially life-saving autonomous vehicle technologies with proven 

safety benefits can be safely integrated into vehicles available to 

the public. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs the 

agency to also reduce cybersecurity risks associated the vehicle’s 

electronic and communications systems. The Committee is also concerned that the Department not create regulatory burdens to the 

safe integration of autonomous vehicles and encourages the Depart-
56 

ment to take into consideration the variations in rural infrastructure, such as unmapped, gravel, and snow-covered roads, wildlife 

encounters, and other situations unique to rural roads. 

Office of Defects Investigations [ODI].—The Committee is disappointed that in spite of additional resources and repeated promises of improvement, the agency continues to stumble from one recall crisis to another. In fact, an OIG report issued this February, 

‘‘Additional Efforts Are Needed To Ensure NHTSA’s Full Implementation of OIG’s 2011 Recommendations’’, found that NHTSA 

lacks sufficient controls for full compliance with recommendations 

issued in 2011 and has yet to execute a formal training program 

for ODI staff. For example, while NHTSA told the OIG that it 

would document justifications for exceeding investigation timeliness goals, over 70 percent of delayed investigations reviewed did 

not include such justifications. NHTSA also agreed to establish a 

procedure to store and retain pre-investigation records to better address potential safety concerns, but 42 percent of the pre-investigation documents reviewed were not included in ODI’s case management system. The OIG also issued a 2015 report, ‘‘Inadequate Data 

and Analysis Undermine NHTSA’s Efforts To Identify and Investigate Vehicle Safety Concerns’’, which included 17 recommendations to improve ODI’s processes for collecting and analyzing vehicle safety data and for determining which potential safety issues 

warrant investigation. NHTSA anticipates completing these recommendations in fiscal year 2016. The Committee directs NHTSA 

shall to fully and consistently implement all OIG recommendations 

from the 2011, 2015, and 2016 reports. Further, the Committee directs the OIG to continue to assess NHTSA’s progress in implementation of these recommendations and report to the Committee within 90 days of enactment of this act on the agency’s progress to resolve these issues. 

Plastics and Polymer Composite Materials.—The Committee recognizes the importance that plastics and polymer-based composite 

materials play in reducing vehicle weight. They provide vehicle 

manufacturers with innovative tools to reduce fuel consumption 

and, by association, vehicle emissions. 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 use funding provided for the Fuel Economy program to 

accelerate the advancement of plastic and polymer composites, including testing and evaluation techniques, while validating the 

safety performance of polymer-based composites in structural applications for the automotive industry. This research will help facilitate a foundation of cooperation between DOT, the Department of 

Energy, and industry stakeholders for the development of safetycentered approaches for future light-weight automotive design. 

Impaired Driving.—Removing drivers from the road who are 

under the influence of drugs and alcohol is key to reducing highway crashes and fatalities. As States adopt new laws regarding 

marijuana, they and the Federal Government are challenged to understand the risk of marijuana-impaired driving, how to accurately 
57 

measure drug impaired driving, and how to set uniform regulations 

regarding impairment. The Committee has advocated for NHTSA 

to advances its work on drug impaired driving by expanding public 

education, data collection, the development of standard practices 

for drug toxicology testing, and guidelines for post-accident drug 

testing and reporting. In fiscal year 2015, the Committee also directed GAO to study strategies that the NHTSA, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, States, and local law enforcement have 

used to detect and reduce drug impaired driving. GAO found that 

a lack of a clear link between impairment and drug concentrations 

in the body makes it difficult to define drug impairment, and highlighted the lack of public awareness and inadequate data available 

to set standards. Subsequently, section 4008 of the FAST Act required the Secretary to conduct a study of marijuana-impaired 

driving to develop standards for impairment and assess technologies for measuring driver impairment within 1 year. In executing this requirement, the Committee also directs NHTSA to develop criteria for roadside drug testing. 

Tire Efficiency.—The FAST Act includes three tire-related provisions under section 24331, the ‘‘Tire Efficiency, Safety, and Registration Act of 2015’’ or the ‘‘TESR Act’’. The provisions will contribute significantly to consumer safety, vehicle fuel economy and 

the competitiveness of the U.S. tire manufacturing industry and 

deserve the Department’s timely attention and resources. The Committee encourages the Secretary to implement these regulations 

promptly and directs the Department to submit a report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days 

after enactment of this act on the Department’s schedule and plan 

for promulgating these regulations. Further, the Committee urges 

DOT to move forward with promulgating its pending updates to 

passenger Tire Pressure Monitoring System [TPMS] standards as 

required by section 24115 of the FAST Act. The risk of unintentional reset or recalibration in some models of TPMS is a concern 

and DOT should not delay in taking action on this issue. 

Motorcoach Safety.—The Committee is concerned by DOT’s inability to meet the deadlines required for roof strength of 

motorcoaches, anti-ejection rules, or avoidance measures for 

motorcoaches as required by MAP–21. The Committee urges the 

agency to finalize anti-ejection and crash avoidance rulemaking in 

fiscal year 2017 and directs NHTSA to submit a report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 6 months 

of the date of enactment of this act on the status of those efforts. 

Section 32704 of MAP–21, required NHTSA to conduct research on 

the causes of motorcoach fires, prevention and mitigation and determine whether there was a need to issue fire prevention standards within 3 years. While NHTSA released its research, the agency has not yet made a decision about whether or not to issue prevention and mitigation standards. NHTSA should move forward 

with this determination to fully meet the requirements of the law. 
58 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2016 ..................................................................................... $573,332,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 585,372,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 585,372,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The most recent surface authorization, the FAST Act, reauthorizes the Sec. 402 State and community formula grants, the high 

visibility enforcement grants, and the consolidated National Priority Safety Program which consists of occupant protection grants, 

State traffic safety information grants, impaired driving countermeasures grants, distracted driving grants, motorcycle safety 

grants, State graduated driver license grants, and nonmotorized 

safety grants. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization of 

$585,372,000 for the highway traffic safety grant programs funded 

under this heading. The recommended limitation is equal to the 

budget estimate and $12,040,000 above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

The Committee continues to recommend prohibiting the use of 

section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling 

costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for State, local, or private buildings or structures. 

The authorized funding for administrative expenses and for each 

grant program is as follows: 

Amount 

Highway Safety Programs (section 402) ............................................................................................................. 252,300,000 

National Priority Safety Programs (section 405) ................................................................................................. 277,500,000 

High Visibility Enforcement Program ................................................................................................................... 29,500,000 

Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 26,072,000 

Drunk Driving Prevention.—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. To date, progress has been significant, including the identification of two competing technological 

approaches which were demonstrated at DOT headquarters in 

June 2015. The FAST Act provides $21,248,000 between fiscal year 

2017 and 2020 for in-vehicle alcohol detection device research. 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 

$5,312,000 for continuation of this research in fiscal year 2017 and 
59 

encourages NHTSA to take steps in fiscal year 2017 to accelerate 

the program, including field tests of the research vehicles. 

Testing for Drug Impairment.—The FAST Act reauthorizes the 

Impaired Driving Countermeasure Grants to States, which allow 

for a number of activities including the purchase of equipment and 

training for the detection of drugs and alcohol in drivers. The Committee directs NHTSA to include activities related to roadside drug 

testing, including the purchase and training in the use of instrumented drug testing devices, such as oral fluid and blood testing 

at the roadside, where shown to be accurate and reliable, as allowable activities under this section. 

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. 

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, 2016 ............................................................................. $199,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 213,298,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 208,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA rail 

safety activities and all other administrative and operating activities related to staff and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recognizes the importance of taking a holistic approach to improving railroad safety and supports a comprehensive 

strategy of data-driven regulatory and inspection efforts, proactive 

approaches to identify and mitigate risks, and strategic capital investments in order to improve safety. 
60 

The Committee recommends $208,500,000 for Safety and Operations for fiscal year 2017, which is $4,798,000 less than the budget request and $9,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level. The bill specifies that $15,900,000 shall remain available 

until expended to cover the cost of the Automated Track Inspection 

Program, the Railroad Safety Information System, research and development activities, and contract support. 

While there have been several high profile incidents involving 

passenger trains in the past year, the Committee remains confident 

that the passenger rail system is safe. In fact, according to the 

FRA’s Office of Safety Analysis, calendar year 2015 actually saw 

the lowest rate of total accidents/incidents per million passenger 

train miles in the last several years. That being said, even one passenger train incident is one too many, and as such, the recent incidents underscore the need for continued safety improvements. The 

Committee believes it is essential that all stakeholders—railroads 

management, unions, and regulatory agencies—work together in a 

collaborative process to promote railroad safety and prevent future 

accidents. The Committee maintains its commitment to prioritizing 

passenger rail safety and the increase in funding supports the 

annualization of 32 safety personnel provided in fiscal year 2016, 

as well as additional safety initiatives detailed below. 

Safe Transport of Energy Products [STEP].—The Committee’s 

recommendation includes funding to support FRA’s efforts to improve the safe transport of energy products. The STEP initiative 

supports crude oil safety inspectors, crude oil route safety managers, and tank car quality assurance specialists, tank car research, as well as supports increased mileage of a dedicated Automated Track Inspection Program vehicle on routes with energy 

products traffic. 

Automated Track Inspection Program.—The Automated Track Inspection Program [ATIP] provides track geometry information, as 

well as other track-related performance data, to assess compliance 

with Federal Track Safety Standards. The data collected under 

ATIP is used by FRA inspectors and by railroads to ensure proper 

track maintenance and to assess track safety trends within the industry. The Committee supports FRA’s budget request to expand 

the use of ATIP vehicles, including autonomous ATIP vehicles, to 

support the inspection of crude oil routes. 

Nationwide Bridge Inventory.—The Committee’s recommendation 

includes $500,000 for FRA to create a Web-based portal to collect 

electronic data from railroads on the number and condition of railroad bridges. This database should document information including 

the age of bridges and the last date of inspection, and the Committee urges FRA to target its inspections to the areas of highest 

risk. 

Small Business Participation Study.—The Committee urges FRA 

to complete a nationwide disparity and availability study on the 

use of small business concerns owned and controlled by socially 

and economically disadvantaged individuals and veteran—owned 

small businesses in publicly funded intercity rail passenger transportation projects. 
61 

Gulf Coast Working Group.—The Committee urges FRA to complete the evaluation of restoration of intercity rail passenger service as required by the FAST Act. 

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $39,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 53,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,100,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Railroad Research and Development program provides 

science and technology support for FRA’s rail safety rulemaking 

and enforcement efforts. It also supports technological advances in 

conventional and high-speed railroads, as well as evaluations of the 

role of railroads in the Nation’s transportation system. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,100,000 for 

railroad Research and Development, which is $13,400,000 less than 

the budget request and $1,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 

enacted level. 

Short Line Safety Institute.—Short Line railroads operate approximately 50,000 miles of track, which is one-third of the national railroad network. They are an important feeder system for 

the larger Class I railroads, helping connect local communities to 

the national railroad network. There are 550 short line railroads 

operating in the United States, 73 of which currently handle some 

volume of energy products. The safety management system of short 

lines is extremely varied. Many small railroads with limited personnel and limited financial capital need additional resources to 

conduct hazardous materials safety training and other operational 

safety assessments. The Committee supports FRA’s efforts, in partnership with short line and regional railroads, to continue to build 

a stronger, sustainable safety culture in this segment of the rail industry. To date, several Class III railroads, including those that 

transport crude oil, have received safety conformance assessments 

in order to improve railroad safety culture. The Committee’s recommendation includes $2,000,000 to further the Short Line Safety 

Institute’s mission, including continued efforts to improve the safe 

transportation of crude oil and other hazardous materials by rail. 

Tank Car Research.—The Committee’s recommendation includes 

$2,000,000 to conduct tank car research activities related to STEP 

in partnership with PHMSA and DOE. 

Intelligent Railroad Systems.—The Committee’s recommendation 

includes $1,000,000 for university research and development in collaboration with FRA to advance the goals and objectives of an Intelligent Railroad System through conversion of the Intelligent 

Transportation Systems technology for highways in an effort to 

serve as a resource for developments in track mapping and inspections, train and railcar tracking, and grade crossing safety. The impacts of recent rail closures in Central Appalachia, including West 

Virginia, highlights the need to advance research that would help 

States retain and attract major rail activity. 
62 

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. 

The Committee directs FRA to continue to provide a summary of 

loan activity for the preceding fiscal years in its fiscal year 2018 

budget justification. At a minimum, FRA should detail the number 

of loans pending and issued, and the processing time for these 

loans. 

CONSOLIDATED RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

GRANTS

Appropriations, 2016 1 ........................................................................... $50,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 2 .........................................................................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 50,000,000 

1Funded under Railroad Safety Grants. 

2 Requested as mandatory funding from the transportation trust fund. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements 

[CRISI] Grants provide support for projects authorized in section 

11301 of Public Law 114–94 that improve rail safety. While the 

Committee is sympathetic to the need for funding for projects that 

improve the efficiency and reliability of passenger and freight rail 

transportation systems, under current budget constraints the Committee is committed to prioritizing projects that improve railroad 

safety. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the CRISI Grants. 

The budget request provides funding under a new $3,700,000,000 

Rail Service Improvements program that would be supported by 

mandatory resources and would require enactment of a new comprehensive surface transportation act, ignoring current law under 

the FAST Act. The recommendation does not include funding for 

the 21st century clean transportation plan investments. 

The Committee included $50,000,000 in Rail Safety Grants in fiscal year 2016. With the recently enacted authorization bill supporting these efforts under CRISI, the Committee provides 

$25,000,000 for section 24407(c)(1) of title 49 United States Code; 

and $25,000,000 for section 24407 (c)(5), (c)(6), (c)(7), and (c)(10). 

Funding for projects eligible under section 24407 (c)(6) and (c)(7) is 

limited to projects that improve railroad safety. 

FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP FOR STATE OF GOOD REPAIR GRANTS

Appropriations, 2016 .............................................................................

Budget estimate, 2017 1 .........................................................................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000 

1 Requested as mandatory funding from the transportation trust fund. 
63 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair Grant 

program provides support for capital projects that reduce the state 

of good repair backlog with respect to qualified railroad assets. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Federal-State 

Partnership for State of Good Repair Grants. The budget request 

provides funding under a new $2,300,000,000 Current Passenger 

Rail Service program that would be supported by mandatory resources and would require enactment of a new comprehensive surface transportation authorization act, ignoring current law under 

the FAST Act. The recommendation does not include funding for 

the 21st century clean transportation investments plan. 

The Committee is aware of the growing backlog of state of good 

repair and improvement needs on many of the country’s important 

passenger routes. The Committee directs FRA to take into consideration the needs of the entire national rail network when awarding funding for this program. 

RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2016 .............................................................................

Budget estimate, 2017 1 .........................................................................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,000,000 

1 Requested as mandatory funding from the transportation trust fund. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Restoration and Enhancement Grant program provides support for operating assistance and capital investments to initiate, restore, or enhance intercity passenger rail service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for Restoration and Enhancement Grants. The budget request provides funding under a 

new $3,700,000,000 Rail Service Improvements program that would 

be supported by mandatory resources and would require enactment 

of a new comprehensive surface transportation authorization act, 

ignoring current law under the FAST Act. The recommendation 

does not include funding for the 21st century clean transportation 

plan investments. The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for section 2408 of title 49, United States Code, and $10,000,000 for capital grants for restoration and initiation of intercity passenger rail 

service. 

THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $1,390,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 1 .........................................................................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,420,000,000 

1 Requested as mandatory funding from the transportation trust fund. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) operates 

intercity passenger rail services in 46 States and the District of Co-
64 

lumbia, in addition to serving as a contractor in various capacities 

for several commuter rail agencies. Congress created Amtrak in the 

Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (Public Law 91–518) in response to private carriers’ inability to profitably operate intercity 

passenger rail service. Thereafter, Amtrak assumed the common 

carrier obligations of the private railroads in exchange for the right 

to priority access to their tracks for incremental cost. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $1,420,000,000 for Amtrak, which is $30,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The budget request would shift funding 

for Amtrak into a new $2,300,000,000 Current Passenger Rail 

Service program that would be supported by mandatory resources 

and would require enactment of a new comprehensive surface 

transportation authorization ignoring current law under the FAST 

Act. The recommendation does not include funding for the 21st century clean transportation plan investments. The Committee understands that FRA and Amtrak are working to complete the necessary changes to comply with the new grant structure created in 

the FAST Act and that the division of funds between the Amtrak 

grants represents the best estimate at the time of enactment of this 

act. 

The Committee directs FRA to make a timely disbursement of 

funds in accordance with the FAST Act to maximize the Corporation’s ability to efficiently manage its cash flow. Each year, Amtrak 

is responsible for significant one-time cash overflows at the beginning of the calendar year. In order to help facilitate these payments, the Committee encourages the FRA to release adequate 

funding in the first quarter of the fiscal year in order to efficiently 

manage Amtrak’s financial obligations in a timely manner. 

Budget, and Business Plan.—The Committee continues to direct 

Amtrak to submit a business plan in accordance with section 

11203(b) of Public Law 114–94 for fiscal year 2017. The Corporation shall continue to submit a budget request for fiscal year 2018 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in similar 

format and substance to those submitted by executive agencies of 

the Federal Government. 

FRA Grant Administration and Report Streamlining.—The Committee recognizes that Amtrak fields a myriad of grant requirements from the FRA. The Committee is supportive of robust oversight by the FRA; however, to the extent practicable, the FRA is 

encouraged to work with Amtrak to reduce duplication and streamline their report requirements. 

ADA Compliance.—The Committee continues to believe that compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act [ADA] is essential to ensuring that all people have equal access 

to transportation services. Amtrak reports that it has some degree 

of ADA responsibility at 365 stations, that it has provided mobile 

lifts at the 97 stations that have less than 7,500 riders annually, 

and that approximately 190 of the remaining 268 stations will need 

some type of set-back level boarding solution. Many of the platforms in these stations are owned by freight railroads and reconciling the requirements of existing freight traffic with the needs of 
65 

passengers is a complex challenge. The Committee encourages Amtrak to use its funds to address compliance requirements that are 

the responsibility of other parties at the stations it serves where 

the work involved is not more than 10 percent of the cost of all 

ADA compliance work at that station, and where doing so would 

expedite completion of its compliance efforts and be a more efficient 

use of resources than compelling those parties to act. With the level 

of funding recommended by the Committee, Amtrak intends to advance construction at a total of 50 stations and intends to advance 

planning and design requirements for another 99 stations. By the 

end of the fiscal year 2016, Amtrak expects to complete work on 

a total of 60 stations. 

Food and Beverage.—In 2013, Amtrak announced a plan to eliminate food and beverage losses on its system. In response to this announcement, the Committee required Amtrak to report on its savings initiatives in fiscal years 2015 and 2016, and the Committee 

is encouraged by the contents of those reports. Subsequently, the 

FAST Act formalized this planning and implementation process 

providing specific requirements to eliminate operating losses associated with providing food and beverage services on board Amtrak 

trains by 2020. The Committee urges Amtrak to continue to take 

actions that would allow it to produce a net loss of zero on its food 

and beverage services ahead of the FAST Act deadline. The Committee directs Amtrak to provide a report to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations no later than 120 days after enactment of this act comparing the actual fiscal year 2016 savings with 

Amtrak projections. 

Passenger Rail in the Bakken Region.—The Committee recognizes the importance of improving the financial viability of Amtrak’s Empire Builder and the growth in demand for passenger rail 

service in the Bakken region. The Committee directs Amtrak to 

continue to work with local officials, taking into account the results 

of the updated Amtrak Empire Builder feasibility study, to address 

the prospect of adding new passenger rail stops. 

Promoting Rail and Airport Connections.—The Committee continues to support efforts to improve intercity passenger rail connections at commercial airports that are adjacent to the mainline of 

the NEC and not currently served by Amtrak, and directs FRA, in 

coordination with Amtrak, to complete the study required in Public 

Law 114–113 on the feasibility of establishing service at such airports by December 31, 2016. The assessment of feasibility should 

be a robust addition to previous efforts considering how intercity 

passenger rail service may complement existing or planned commuter passenger rail service at such stations and contain thorough 

analysis of the projected ridership and revenue levels, impacts on 

network service levels and performance, operating and capital 

costs, and local economic impacts associated with any service options. 

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD

PASSENGER CORPORATION

The Committee recommends $345,000,000 for Northeast Corridor 

Grants to Amtrak. The funding level provided includes no more 
66 

than $5,000,000 for use of the Northeast Corridor Commission established under section 24905 of title 49, United States Code. 

Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Needs.—The Committee acknowledges that the NEC has a state of good repair backlog of 

more than $28,000,000,000. This includes several key components 

of electrical and signal systems that date back to the 1930s as well 

as critical bridges and tunnels that are more than 100 years old. 

According to the NEC Commission, the loss of the NEC for a single 

day could cost the country $100,000,000 in added congestion, productivity losses, and other transportation impacts. 

NATIONAL NETWORK GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION

The Committee recommends $1,075,000,000 for National Network Grants to Amtrak. The funding level provided includes no 

more than $2,000,000 for use of the State-Supported Route Committee established in the FAST Act. 

Long-Distance State of Good Repair.—The Committee recognizes 

the important role rail corridors, such as the Great Northern Corridor, play in maintaining connectivity for both freight and passengers on the national rail network. Additionally, the Committee 

recognizes the strain placed on rail infrastructure by aging equipment. The Committee urges FRA and Amtrak to work with local 

communities and partners to upgrade shared-use infrastructure on 

its long-distance routes. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 150 limits overtime payments to employees at Amtrak to 

$35,000 per employee. However, Amtrak’s president may waive 

this restriction for specific employees for safety or operational efficiency reasons. If the cap is waived, Amtrak must notify the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days and 

specify the reason for such waiver. 

Section 151 provides additional flexibility to FRA Restoration 

and Enhancement Grants for operating expenses. 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 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 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. 
67 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of 

$12,332,434,043 is provided for FTA programs in fiscal year 2017. 

The recommendation is $7,436,272,000 less than the budget request and $575,227,404 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level. The recommendation does not include funding for the 21st 

century clean transportation investments plan. 

General fund Highway trust fund Total 

Appropriation 2016 ........................................................................ $2,409,602,000 $9,347,604,639 $11,757,206,639 

Budget estimate, 2017 .................................................................. 150,000,000 19,618,706,043 19,768,706,043 

Committee recommendation .......................................................... 2,598,728,000 9,733,706,043 12,332,434,043 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $108,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 1 ......................................................................... 115,016,543 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 110,665,000 

1 Requested as a set-aside within Formula Grants. 

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 $110,665,000 from the 

general fund for the agency’s salaries and administrative expenses. 

The recommended level of funding is $4,351,543 less than the 

budget request, which assumed that FTA’s administrative expenses 

would be provided as a set-aside within the Formula Grants account. The Committee recommendation is also $2,665,000 above 

the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

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].—Section 5309(k) of 

title 49, U.S.C. 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 FFGA. 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 FFGA; (2) the total and annual Federal appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly and total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated for existing FFGAs 

for each fiscal year through 2019; (4) a detailed analysis of annual 

commitments for current and anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization, by individual project; (5) a financial analysis 

of the project’s cost and sponsor’s ability to finance the project, 

which shall be conducted by an independent examiner and which 
68 

shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and finance 

plan; (6) the source and security of all public and private sector financing; (7) the project’s operating plan, which enumerates the 

project’s future revenue and ridership forecasts; and (8) a listing of 

all planned contingencies and possible risks associated with the 

project. 

The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations in writing 30 days before approving 

schedule, scope, or budget changes to any FFGA. 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 

Capital Investment Grant program update to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, detailing the status of each 

project. This update should include anticipated milestone schedules 

for advancing projects, especially those within 2 years of a proposed 

FFGA. It should also highlight and explain any potential cost and 

schedule changes affecting projects. In addition, FTA should notify 

the Committees 10 days before any project in the Capital Investment Grant program is given approval by FTA to advance to 

project development or engineering. 

FORMULA GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Obligation limitation 

(trust fund) 

Appropriations, 2016 ........................................................................................................................................ $9,347,604,639 

Budget estimate, 2017 .................................................................................................................................... 9,733,706,043 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................................................ 9,733,706,043 

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; a 

pilot program for enhanced mobility; formula grants for rural 

areas; public transportation innovation; technical assistance and 

workforce development, including a national transit institute; a bus 

testing facility; the national transit database; state of good repairs 

grants; bus and bus facilities formulas grants; growing States and 

high-density States formula grants; and positive train control 

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. 
69 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting obligations in the transit 

formula and bus grants account in fiscal year 2017 to 

$9,733,706,043. The recommendation is equal to the budget request 

and $386,101,403 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The 

recommendation is also consistent with the currently authorized 

level under the FAST Act. The recommendation does not include 

funding for the 21st century clean transportation plan investments. 

The Committee recommends $10,800,000,000 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 

2016 

Fiscal year 2017 

Administration 

proposal 

Committee 

assumption 

Transit Oriented Development .................... 20005(b) ........ $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 

Planning Programs ..................................... 5305 .............. 130,732,000 133,398,933 133,398,933 

Urbanized Area Formula Grants ................. 5307 .............. 4,538,905,701 4,629,683,814 4,629,683,814 

Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities.5310 .............. 262,949,400 268,208,388 268,208,388 

Pilot Program for Enhanced Mobility ......... 3006(b) .......... 2,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Formula Grants for Rural Areas ................. 5311 .............. 619,956,000 632,355,120 632,355,120 

Public Transportation Innovation ............... 5312 .............. 28,000,000 28,000,000 28,000,000 

Technical Assistance and Workforce Development.5314 .............. 9,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 

Bus Testing Facilities ................................. 5318 .............. 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

National Transit Database ......................... 5335 .............. 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

State of Good Repair Grants ...................... 5337 .............. 2,507,000,000 2,549,670,000 2,549,670,000 

Bus and Bus Facilities Grants ................... 5339 .............. 695,800,000 719,956,000 719,956,000 

Growing States and High Density States ... 5340 .............. 536,261,539 544,433,788 544,433,788 

Positive Train Control ................................. ........................ .............................. 199,000,000 199,000,000 

Total .............................................. ........................ 9,347,604,639 9,733,706,043 9,733,706,043 

Transit Formula Allocations.—The Committee supports increased funding levels authorized by the FAST Act for bus and bus 

facility grants and encourages FTA to prioritize competitive funding under this program for small and rural systems. 

Improving Rural Transit Access.—The Committee recognizes the 

importance of ensuring safe, private transportation is made available for seniors and people who do not drive, especially in small 

and rural communities where distance and low population density 

make traditional mass transportation difficult. The efficiencies of 

information management can help to provide on-demand transportation services and bring together underutilized private transportation capacity through ride share, car share, volunteer transport, 

and private community transport. The Committee encourages FTA 

to consider innovative transportation networks that leverage community volunteerism and private resources in various forms to access underutilized private transportation capacity to promote inclusive community mobility and provide transportation for seniors and 

disadvantaged populations in small and rural communities. Further, the Committee supports the capacity of consumers to plan 
70 

their travel safely, independently and reliably through a variety of 

techniques and tools. 

Positive Train Control.—The Committee recommendation includes $199,000,000 to help commuter and intercity railroads implement Positive Train Control as authorized by the FAST Act. 

Section 3028 of the FAST Act outlines eligible recipients of these 

funds as entities that receive funds under chapter 53 of title 49, 

United States Code. The Committee therefore believes these funds 

are available to States that partner with Amtrak on State supported routes. 

Low or No Emission Vehicles.—The Committee supports the 

FAST Act’s inclusion of competitive grants for low or no emission 

buses and bus facilities into the section 3017 buses and bus facilities grant program. This change is aimed at ensuring that low or 

no emission vehicles or facilities financed under this program can 

be fully integrated into public transportation systems. The Committee encourages FTA to favorably consider grant applications focused on the cleanest technologies available in the transit bus market, including transit bus technologies and supporting facilities 

that have no tailpipe/point source emissions. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $2,177,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 1 ......................................................................... 3,500,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,338,063,000 

1 Requested as mandatory funding from the transportation trust fund 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under the Capital Investment Grants [CIG] program, FTA provides grants to fund the building of new fixed guideway systems or 

extensions and improvements to existing fixed guideway systems. 

Eligible services include light rail, rapid rail (heavy rail), commuter 

rail, and bus rapid transit. The program includes funding for four 

categories of eligible projects authorized under section 5309 of title 

49 of the United States Code and section 3005(b) of the FAST Act: 

New Starts, Small Starts, Core Capacity, and Expedited Project 

Delivery Pilot Program. New Starts are projects with a Federal 

share under this section of at least $100,000,000 or a total net capital cost of at least $300,000,000. By comparison, Small Starts are 

projects with a Federal share under this section of less than 

$100,000,000 and total net capital cost less than $300,000,000. 

Core Capacity projects are those that will expand capacity by at 

least 10 percent in existing fixed-guideway transit corridors that 

are already at or above capacity today, or are expected to be at or 

above capacity within 5 years. The FAST Act authorizes eight 

projects under the Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program, consisting of New Starts, Small Starts, or Core Capacity, that require 

no more than a 25 percent Federal share and are supported, in 

part, by a public private partnership. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,338,063,000 for capital investment grants, which is $161,063,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 

enacted level, and $1,161,937,000 less than the request. The Com-
71 

mittee’s recommendation includes $1,209,790,000 to cover the cost 

of existing full funding grant agreements [FFGAs] in fiscal year 

2017 and $511,280,000 for new starts projects that the administration has recommended for FFGAs in its budget request. Of the new 

FFGA projects in the budget request, the Committee recommendation includes not less than $250,000,000 for the three projects in 

California, $36,280,000 for the project in Washington, $125,000,000 

for the project in Maryland, and $100,000,000 for the project in 

Texas. In addition, $332,850,000 is for core capacity projects, 

$240,762,000 is for small starts projects, $20,000,000 is for expedited project delivery, and $23,381,000 is for oversight activities. 

The Committee directs FTA to allocate no more than $100,000,000 

per project in fiscal year 2017 funds for core capacity, small starts, 

and expedited project delivery projects. 

Increasing Costs of Transit Projects.—Not later than 6 months 

after the enactment of this act, the GAO shall report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations regarding the construction costs of transit capital projects in the United States in comparison to other developed G–20 nations, such as South Korea, 

Japan, Spain, France, Italy and Germany. The GAO shall examine 

potential cost drivers, including: contracting and procurement, 

project and station design, routing, regulatory barriers, interagency 

cooperation and legal systems. The report shall compare practices 

both between various cities in the United States as well as to practices in other nations. The report should, if appropriate, make recommendations to DOT on steps it can take to address the issues 

identified by the reports to help bring best practices in the United 

States in line with international standards within the boundaries 

of current U.S. law. These recommendations may take the form of 

changes to funding guidelines or prioritization, regulatory changes, 

contracting practices, or intergovernmental technical assistance. 

GRANTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT

AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $150,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 150,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 150,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides assistance to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA]. The Federal Rail Safety 

Improvements Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–432, title VI, section 

601) authorized DOT to make up to $150,000,000 available to 

WMATA annually for capital and preventive maintenance for a 10- 

year period. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for grants 

to WMATA for capital and preventive maintenance expenses, including pressing safety-related investments, which is equal to the 

budget request and the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. These grants 

are in addition to the funding local jurisdictions have committed to 

providing to WMATA. 
72 

The Committee is very frustrated with the lack of significant 

progress WMATA has made in fixing the system’s operational and 

financial problems and implementing a culture of safety despite 

continued Federal support. This year marks the seventh anniversary of the deadly WMATA crash at the Fort Totten Station that 

killed nine people. This is the eighth installment of appropriated 

Federal dedicated funding authorized for WMATA. 

The Committee is deeply troubled by the emergency cable inspection that shut down the entire system for more than 24 hours in 

March 2016, uncovering a significant number of damaged jumper 

cables and connector boots. It is especially troubling to learn that 

these dangerous equipment conditions continue to exist more than 

a year after the deadly Yellow Line Smoke Incident at L’Enfant 

Plaza Station in January 2015. The National Transportation Safety 

Board [NTSB] directed WMATA to fix this hardware in June 2015 

following the incident. 

The Committee commends the Secretary for his leadership and 

active engagement on improving the operation and management of 

WMATA. The Secretary has made improving WMATA’s safety a 

top priority including directing the FTA to conduct a safety inspection of the metro system in March 2015. This audit examined 

WMATA’s safety culture including safety procedures and protocols. 

The Secretary subsequently directed FTA to take over safety oversight of WMATA from the ineffective Tri-State Oversight Committee in October 2015. The FTA continues to serve in this temporary role while it waits for the jurisdictions to set up a more robust and independent oversight entity. In March 2016, the Secretary began another emergency safety inspection focused on red 

signal overruns, track integrity, and rail vehicle securement. This 

FTA inspection will likely result in additional mandated corrective 

actions for WMATA. Given the significant safety improvements 

that must still be made by the troubled metro system, the bill once 

again requires the Secretary to approve grants provided under this 

heading to WMATA only after certifying that progress has been 

made to improve safety in the system. 

Financial Management.—FTA reported material weaknesses and 

significant deficiencies in WMATA’s internal financial controls in a 

2014 audit. In response to these serious findings, FTA suspended 

WMATA’s ability to automatically draw down its Federal grants. 

FTA will review and approve each WMATA request for reimbursement until these weaknesses are corrected and WMATA shows significant improvement. The bill requires the Secretary to approve 

grants provided under this heading to WMATA only after certifying 

that WMATA is making progress toward full implementation of the 

corrective actions identified in the 2014 financial audit. 

The bill also directs the Secretary to provide these grants to 

WMATA only after receiving and reviewing a request for each specific project to be funded under this heading. The bill requires the 

Secretary to determine that WMATA has placed the highest priority on funding projects that will improve the safety of its public 

transit system before approving these grants, using the recommendations and directives of the NTSB and FTA as a guide. 

Wireless Service Extension.—The Committee reluctantly provides 

another 1-year extension for the wireless service requirement in 
73 

the authorization statute. The Committee directs WMATA to continue to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a quarterly report detailing its progress installing wireless 

service. 

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, 2021, 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, 2016, 

that remain available for expenditure to be transferred to the most 

recent appropriation heading. 

Section 163 makes a technical correction to 49 U.S.C. 

5303(r)(2)(C). 

Section 164 rescinds any unobligated balances from funding provided in fiscal year 2012 or earlier from the job access and reverse 

commute program and makes them available for projects under 49 

U.S.C. 5309(q). 

Section 165 allows small transit operators to use urbanized area 

formula grants for operating assistance based on locally determined 

planning processes and requirements, subject to limitations. 

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. 

SLSDC is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of the United States portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway 

[Seaway] between Montreal and Lake Erie. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $28,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 36,028,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 36,028,000 

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 HMTF and revenues 
74 

from non-Federal sources finance the operation and maintenance of 

the Seaway, for which SLSDC is responsible. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $36,028,000 for the operations, 

maintenance, and asset renewal of SLSDC. This amount is equal 

to the budget request and $7,628,000 more than the fiscal year 

2016 enacted level. 

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 

Asset Renewal Program during the immediate preceding fiscal 

year. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Administration [MARAD] is responsible for programs authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended 

(46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). MARAD is also responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support of the 

Nation’s security and economic needs. MARAD prioritizes the Department of Defense’s [DOD] use of ports and intermodal facilities 

during DOD mobilizations to guarantee the smooth flow of military 

cargo through commercial ports. MARAD manages the Maritime 

Security Program, the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement 

Program, and the Ready Reserve Force, which assure DOD access 

to commercial and strategic sealift and associated intermodal capacity. MARAD also continues to address the disposal of obsolete 

ships in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that are deemed a potential environmental risk. Further, MARAD administers education 

and training programs through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six State maritime schools that assist in providing skilled 

merchant marine officers who are capable of serving defense and 

commercial transportation needs. The Committee continues to fund 

MARAD in its support of the United States as a maritime Nation. 

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $210,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 211,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 275,000,000 

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. 
75 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $275,000,000 for 

the MSP. This amount is $64,000,000 more than the budget request and $65,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level. The recommended appropriation is based upon the subcommittee’s Defense allocation. A lack of funds to the authorized 

level should not be interpreted in any way to signify a lack of support for this critical National Security program. The bill includes 

language directing MARAD to divide the funding proportionally 

among the 60 ships in the program in order to maintain these important maritime jobs. 

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $171,155,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 194,146,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 175,160,000 

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 $175,160,000 for 

Operations and Training at MARAD for fiscal year 2017 to be distributed between agency operations, the United States Merchant 

Marine Academy, and State maritime academies as outlined in the 

chart below. This amount is $4,005,000 more than the fiscal year 

2016 enacted level and $18,986,000 less than the budget request. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

Fiscal year 2017 Senate 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy ........................................................................................................................... $83,218,000 

Academy Operations .................................................................................................................................... 65,218,000 

Capital Improvements ................................................................................................................................. 15,000,000 

Facilities Maintenance, Repair and Equipment ......................................................................................... 3,000,000 

State Maritime Academies ................................................................................................................................... 34,600,000 

SMA Direct Payments .................................................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

Student Incentive Payments ....................................................................................................................... 2,400,000 

Schoolship Maintenance and Repair .......................................................................................................... 22,000,000 

Fuel Assistance Payments .......................................................................................................................... 1,200,000 

National Security Multi-Mission Vehicle Design ......................................................................................... 6,000,000 

MARAD Operations ............................................................................................................................................... 57,342,000 

Headquarter Operations .............................................................................................................................. 49,142,000 

Environment and Technology Grants .......................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Marine Highways Grants ............................................................................................................................. 5,000,000 

Total ................................................................................................................................................... 175,160,000 

Short Sea Shipping Program.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $5,000,000 for the Short Sea Shipping program, commonly 
76 

known as the Marine Highway program. Projects funded by this 

grant program will help mitigate landside congestion, encourage 

shipper utilization, improve port and landside infrastructure, and 

develop marine transportation strategies by State and local governments. 

National Security Multi-Mission Vessel [NSMV].—The Committee supports MARAD’s efforts to develop a replacement vessel 

for the six State Maritime Academy training ships, including the 

53-year-old training ship Empire State. The Committee is concerned that the budget request’s exclusion of funding for vessel design signaled a lack of interest in maritime education and addressing this urgent need. The Committee provides $6,000,000 to complete vessel design, and conduct long-term planning activities for 

the incremental replacement of the current academy training ships. 

The Committee directs the agency to consult with the Navy, Coast 

Guard, and any other relevant agencies that may benefit from the 

NSMV prior to submitting any future budget request related to the 

construction, acquisition, or conversion of a replacement vessel. 

United States Merchant Marine Academy Spend Plan.—The 

Committee directs the Secretary, in consultation with the Superintendent of the United States Merchant Marine Academy and the 

Maritime Administrator, to complete a spend plan anticipating 

Academy expenditures, and to provide this plan to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment 

of this act. 

Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment at the United States Merchant Marine Academy.—The Committee remains concerned about 

the rate of incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment at 

the Academy. The most recent survey of sexual harassment and 

sexual assault from the 2014–2015 academic year shows a continuation of the disturbing results at the Academy seen in prior surveys. Despite 17.1 percent of female and 2 percent of male midshipmen reporting sexual assault on the survey, only one of the incidents was reported to Academy leadership. 

It is imperative that senior leadership throughout the Department make improving conditions at the Academy a top priority. 

The Academy has made strides by hiring a new Sexual Assault Response Coordinator with relevant experience and knowledge to address these issues, but a change in culture must be made throughout the entire Academy. The Committee directs the Secretary to 

provide the annual report required by section 3507 of Public Law 

110–417 to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

no later than January 12, 2017. 

United States Merchant Marine Academy Capital Improvements 

Plan [CIP].—The Committee directs the Administrator to provide 

an annual report by March 31, 2017, on the current status of the 

CIP. The report should include a list of all projects that have received funding and all proposed projects that the Academy intends 

to initiate within the next 5 years: cost overruns and cost savings 

for each active project; specific target dates for project completion; 

delays and the cause of delays; schedule changes; up-to-date cost 

projections for each project; and any other deviations from the previous year’s CIP. 
77 

Environment and Compliance.—The Committee commends 

MARAD’s initiative to support the domestic maritime industry’s efforts to comply with emerging international and domestic environmental regulatory requirements. The Committee directs MARAD to 

notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not 

less than 3 business days before grant, contract, or cooperative 

agreement is announced by the Department or MARAD for the 

maritime environment and technology assistance program as authorized by 46 U.S.C. 50307. 

Small Shipyard Survey.—The Committee directs MARAD, in 

consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers, to conduct a survey of the dredging needs of small shipyards and to provide the results to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 400 days of enactment of this act. 

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL SHIPYARDS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ...........................................................................

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

As authorized under section 54101 of title 46, the Assistance to 

Small Shipyards program provides assistance in the form of grants, 

loans, and loan guarantees to small shipyards for capital improvements and training programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for assistance to small shipyards. This level of funding is $5,000,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level and $10,000,000 above the 

President’s request. Funding for this program is intended to help 

small shipyards improve the efficiency of their operations by providing funding for equipment and other facility upgrades, including 

dredging of waters located within the shipyard’s geographical location for the purpose of improving the shipyard facility operations. 

The funding recommended by the Committee will help improve the 

competitiveness of our Nation’s small shipyards, as well as workforce training and apprenticeships in communities dependent upon 

maritime transportation. 

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 20,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Ship Disposal account provides resources to dispose of obsolete merchant-type vessels of 150,000 gross tons or more in the National Defense Reserve Fleet [NDRF]. MARAD contracts with domestic shipbreaking companies to dismantle these vessels in accordance with guidelines established by the Environmental Protection Agency. 
78 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,000,000 for 

MARAD’s Ship Disposal program. This level of funding is 

$15,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level and equal 

to the budget request. This level of funding is sufficient to meet the 

terms and conditions of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet settlement. 

The Committee recommendation includes $8,000,000 for activities 

related to the decommissioning of NS Savannah. The total number 

of obsolete ships not yet under contract and awaiting disposal is 

down to 13. This is a historic low for the program. 

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM [TITLE XI]

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $8,135,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 3,000,000 

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

1The estimate does not reflect the proposed rescission. 

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 $5,000,000 for the maritime guaranteed loan title XI program, of which $3,000,000 

shall be used for administrative expenses of the maritime loan 

guarantee program. This level of funding is $2,000,000 more than 

the President’s budget request and $3,135,000 less than the fiscal 

year 2016 enacted level. The loan guarantee amount of $2,000,000 

in addition to unobligated balances currently available, is sufficient 

to meet the cost of all current active applications before the Department. The Committee directs the agency to process all applications expeditiously and continue to proactively monitor all guaranteed loans that may be at risk of default. The Committee recognizes the importance that the title XI program provides for the advancement of shipbuilding, aiding the U.S.-flag fleet, and 

sustainment of jobs for this critical sector of our national defense. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 170 authorizes MARAD 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. 
79 

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 agency 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, 2016 ............................................................................. $21,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 23,688,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 23,207,000 

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 $23,207,000 for this account, of 

which $1,500,000 shall be transferred to the Office of Pipeline Safety for Information Grants to Communities. The Committee’s recommendation is $481,000 less than the budget request and 

$2,207,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $55,619,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 68,249,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 57,619,000 

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 $57,619,000 for 

hazardous materials safety, of which $7,570,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2019. The amount provided is $10,630,000 

less than the administration’s budget request and $2,000,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The Committee’s recommendation does not provide new FTE. 
80 

Comprehensive Oil Spill Response Plans.—An oil spill response 

plan is intended to help the carrier identify and deploy a response 

organization to contain and remediate an oil release. The plans require carriers to identify a qualified individual with full authority 

to implement removal actions; ensure by contract or other means 

the availability of private personnel and equipment to remove a 

worst case discharge; and describe training, equipment testing, 

drills and exercises. PHMSA issued an advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking on expanding the applicability of comprehensive oil 

spill response plans to rail carriers in July 2014. The Committee 

notes with disappointment that to date, despite additional resources provided by the Committee and direction in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2016, PHMSA has not initiated a rulemaking. The Committee directs PHMSA to initiate a 

rulemaking to expand the applicability of comprehensive oil spill 

response plans to rail carriers no later than June 30, 2016, and to 

issue a final rule no later than December 18, 2016. 

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $146,623,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 174,943,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 149,959,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] is designed to promote the 

safe, reliable, and sound transportation of natural gas and hazardous liquids through the Nation’s 2.6 million miles of privately 

owned and operated pipelines. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Pipeline Safety Office has the important responsibility of ensuring the safety and integrity of the pipelines that run through 

every community in our Nation. Efforts by Congress and the OPS 

to invest in promising safety technologies, increase civil penalties, 

and educate communities about the potential risks of pipelines 

have resulted in a reduction in serious pipeline incidents. It is essential that the agency continue to make strides in protecting communities from pipeline failures and incidents. To that end, the 

Committee recommends an appropriation of $149,959,000 for the 

OPS, consistent with the SAFE PIPES Act as approved by the Senate. The amount is $3,336,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level and $24,984,000 less than the budget request. Of the 

funding provided, $20,288,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund and $129,671,000 shall be derived from the 

Pipeline Safety Fund. Of the funds recommended for research and 

development up to $2,000,000 shall be used for the Pipeline Safety 

Research Competitive Academic Agreement Program [CAAP] to 

focus on near-term solutions to improve the safety and reliability 

of the Nation’s pipeline transportation system. 

Seismic Safety.—The Committee is concerned that insufficient attention has been paid to the seismic safety of pipelines, particularly 
81 

those transporting natural gas and petroleum, that cross fault 

lines. The Committee directs PHMSA to provide a briefing to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than 60 

days after the day of enactment of this act regarding the number 

of both interstate and intrastate pipelines that cross faults that 

move at least 5 millimeters per year, existing Federal regulations 

governing pipeline seismic safety, and the potential for installing 

automatic shut-off valves that can be coordinated with a future 

earthquake early warning system. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $28,318,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 28,318,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,318,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 

1990 [HMTUSA] requires PHMSA to (1) develop and implement a 

reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 

public sector emergency response training and planning, and provide technical assistance to States, political subdivisions, and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and periodically update a mandatory 

training curriculum for emergency responders. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $28,318,000 and an equal obligation 

limitation for the emergency preparedness grant program. The recommendation continues to provide PHMSA the authority to use 

prior year carryover and recaptures for the development of a Webbased hazardous materials response training curriculum for emergency responders, including response activities for crude oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids by rail. The Committee is pleased 

that in March 2016 PHMSA released its initial Web-based, off-theshelf training material that can be used by emergency responders 

across the country. The Committee encourages PHMSA to continue 

to enhance its training curriculum for local emergency responders. 

Prior years’ carryover may also be used to train public sector emergency response personnel in communities on or near rail lines that 

transport a significant volume of high-risk energy commodities or 

toxic inhalation hazards. The Committee continues a provision increasing the administrative costs available from 2 percent to 4 percent in order to address the OIG’s recommendations. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $87,472,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 90,152,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 93,550,000 
82 

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 $93,550,000 for activities of the Office of the Inspector General, which is $3,398,000 

more than the President’s budget request and $6,078,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

Audit Reports.—The Committee requests that the Inspector General continue to forward copies of all audit reports to the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to continue to make 

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. 

Buy American Compliance.—Congressionally mandated audits of 

the Department of Defense’s purchases of manufactured goods, 

Naval Personnel Can Improve Compliance With the Berry Amendment and the Buy American Act, and Air Force Personnel Can Improve Compliance With the Berry Amendment and the Buy American Act, revealed a high level of non-compliance with statutory 

‘‘Buy American’’ obligations. In the last 5 years, the FAA has reported purchases of over $3,000,000,000 of manufactured goods. 

Given the impact that manufacturing has on our economy, the 

Committee directs the Inspector General of the Department of 

Transportation to conduct an audit of FAA purchases of manufactured goods to ensure compliance with chapter 83, title 41 of the 

United States Code for the purchase of domestically manufactured 

goods. 

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. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Section 180 allows funds for maintenance and operation of aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, 

as authorized by law. 

Section 181 limits appropriations for services authorized by 5 

U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an executive level IV. 
83 

Section 182 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and expenses 

of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation. 

Section 183 prohibits recipients of funds made available in the 

act from releasing personal information, including Social Security 

numbers, medical and disability information, and photographs, 

from a driver’s license or motor vehicle record without the express 

consent of the person to whom such information pertains; and prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from withholding funds provided in this act from any grantee in noncompliance with this provision. 

Section 184 allows funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration from States, counties, municipalities, other 

public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for 

training may be credited to each agency’s respective accounts. 

Section 185 prohibits the use of funds in this act to make a grant 

or announce the intention to make a grant unless the Secretary of 

Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations at least 3 full business days before making the grant 

or the announcement. 

Section 186 allows rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor 

fees, and other funds received by the Department of Transportation 

from travel management center, charge card programs, subleasing 

of building space and miscellaneous sources to be credited to appropriations of the Department of Transportation. 

Section 187 requires amounts from improper payments to a 

third-party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the Department of Transportation to be available to cover expenses incurred 

in recovery of such payments. 

Section 188 establishes requirements for reprogramming actions 

by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 189 prohibits 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 190 authorizes the Secretary to carry out a program that 

establishes uniform standards for developing and supporting agency transit pass and transit benefits authorized under section 7905 

of title 5, United States Code. 

Section 191 prohibits the use of funds for any geographic, economic, or other hiring preference pilot program, regulation, or policy unless certain requirements are met related to availability of 

local labor, displacement of existing employees, and delays in 

transportation plans. 
(84) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

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 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 also administers programs that protect homebuyers, and 

fosters programs and research that stimulate and guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but better communities 

and living environments. 

As HUD works to fulfill its mission, the Committee urges the 

Secretary to enhance its efforts to provide decent, affordable housing and to promote economic development for rural Americans. 

When designing programs and making funding decisions, the Secretary shall take into consideration the unique conditions, challenges, and scale of rural areas. 

The Committee notes that poverty is far too prevalent in the 

United States. HUD should continue to work with Congress and 

other partners to implement policies that reduce poverty and the 

suffering associated with it. The Committee also encourages HUD 

to increase interagency collaboration to ensure Federal resources 

are strategically deployed in order to achieve the most effective outcomes, while also reducing overlap and duplication. 

Relationship Between HUD and the Committee on Appropriations.—The primary relationship between the Committee and HUD 

exists via the Departmental budget office. This relationship is an 

absolute necessity in structuring the annual appropriations act. It 

facilitates an effective sharing of a wide range of budgetary and 

cost information. The Committee retains the right to call upon all 

offices and agencies within the Department, but the primary connection between the two entities exists through the budget office. 
85 

The Committee cautions HUD that section 405 of the Appropriations Act governs the creation of new offices and policies. Additionally, the Committee expects that all offices within HUD will work 

with the budget office to provide timely and accurate information 

to the Committee. 

Appropriations Attorneys.—During consideration of the fiscal 

year 2003 appropriations legislation, it became apparent to the 

Committee that both the Committee and the Department would be 

better served if the attorneys responsible for appropriations matters were housed in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

[OCFO]. The fiscal year 2003 act provided funds and FTE to the 

OCFO to accommodate four attorneys transferred from the Office 

of General Counsel [OGC]. Since that time, the Committee has routinely received prompt, accurate, and reliable information from the 

OCFO on various appropriations law matters. For fiscal year 2017, 

the Committee continues to fund appropriations attorneys in the 

OCFO and directs HUD to refer all appropriations law issues to 

such attorneys within the OCFO. 

Reprogramming and Congressional Notification.—The Committee 

reiterates that the Department must secure the approval of the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for the reprogramming of funds between programs, projects, and activities 

within each account. Unless otherwise identified in the bill or report, the most detailed allocation of funds presented in the budget 

justifications is approved, with any deviation from such approved 

allocation subject to the normal reprogramming requirements. Except as specifically provided otherwise, it is the intent of the Committee that all carryover funds in the various accounts, including 

recaptures and de-obligations, are subject to the normal reprogramming requirements outlined under section 405. No change may be 

made to any program, project, or activity if it is construed to be 

new policy or a change in policy, without prior approval of the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Committee 

also directs HUD to include a separate delineation of any reprogramming of funds requiring approval in the operating plan required by section 405 of this act. Finally, the Committee shall be 

notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs or activities 

prior to the implementation of such reorganizations. The Department is directed to submit, in consultation with the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations, current and accurate organizational charts for each Office within the Department as part of 

the fiscal year 2018 congressional justifications. The Committee 

further directs the Department to submit any staff realignments or 

restructuring to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 30 days prior to their implementation. 

Grant Awards and Congressional Notification.—HUD is reminded that appropriated funds are critical investments that support communities across the Nation. HUD’s grant programs give 

State and local governments, public housing agencies, nonprofit organizations, tribal entities, and other key housing development and 

service providers the resources to build and preserve quality affordable housing, spur local economies, and make communities more 

stable. The Committee is concerned that the Department continues 

to use archaic systems and processes for grant notifications, caus-
86 

ing delays, inefficiencies, and administrative burdens on staff. 

Therefore, the Committee urges HUD to consult with the Department of Transportation and other Federal agencies on their Congressional notification process. 

Congressionally Mandated Reports.—The Department is reminded that directives and reports mandated in the House and 

Senate appropriations acts and accompanying reports are not optional unless revised or eliminated by the Statement of Managers 

accompanying the act. The Committee believes that such reports 

provide a better understanding of various issues and the Committee uses such reports to help inform funding decisions. Therefore, the Department is advised that the submission of directed reports is mandatory and not at the discretion of the Department. 

The Committee directs the Department to submit all overdue reports and to advise the Committee if it is unable to meet a reporting requirement well in advance of the deadline. 

Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress.—The 

Committee believes the Department can undertake additional actions to increase accountability and transparency, which will improve oversight and ensure Federal resources are not wasted or 

abused. The Committee reminds HUD that for fiscal year 2015, the 

Office of Inspector General [OIG] identified nearly $2,000,000,000 

of HUD resources that could be put to better use. The Committee 

encourages HUD to respond to both the Inspector General and the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on actions already taken, and planned future action, to address such findings, 

within 30 days of issuance of each OIG semiannual report. 

Lead-Hazard Control and Remediation.—The Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention [CDC] estimate that 535,000 American 

children under 6 years of age are affected by lead poisoning. This 

preventable condition can result in children having reduced IQs 

and developing behavioral problems and learning disabilities. According to HUD, 70 percent of lead poisoning cases in the United 

States are the result of exposure to lead-based paint hazards in the 

home. This exposure usually stems from the presence of lead-based 

paint in homes built prior to 1978. 

Over the last decade, the Committee has provided more than 

$1,000,000,000 for initiatives that address lead-based paint hazards in our Nation’s housing stock. These resources have helped to 

improve the condition of 78,032 homes and the lives and health 

outcomes of 278,000 people. These funds were primarily used to address lead-based paint hazards in homes that were owned or occupied by low and very-low income families with children. 

However, the continued presence of lead-based paint hazards in 

HUD-assisted housing has only been fully revealed in recent news 

reports. These reports raise concerns that HUD has insufficient 

oversight to ensure that public housing agencies and property owners comply with regulations regarding inspections for and remediation of lead-based paint hazards. Furthermore, the Committee believes that HUD has failed to appropriately respond to the CDC’s 

decision in 2012 to strengthen its blood lead level standard for children under 6 years old. HUD’s blood lead level standard, which 

prescribes the level at which an environmental intervention must 

be performed in a unit, has not been changed since 1999. As a re-
87 

sult, HUD’s outdated standard permits children to live in homes 

that place them at risk of permanent neurological damage. 

To address these concerns, the bill and accompanying report include a deadline for the implementation of a new regulation that 

strengthens HUD’s blood lead level standard, and a series of reforms and investments to address lead-based paint hazards in 

HUD-assisted housing and low-income housing in the private sector. The Committee includes reforms to current policies, an expansion of HUD’s oversight and enforcement capacity, and additional 

funding for Public Housing Agencies [PHAs] and low-income homeowners to address lead-based paint hazards in the home. 

EXECUTIVE OFFICES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $13,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 14,479,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,608,000 

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, the Departmental Enforcement Center, 

and the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,608,000 for this account, which is $16,808,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 

enacted level and $16,129,000 more than the budget request. Of 

the total amount provided, no less than $16,148,000 shall be for the 

Departmental Enforcement Center. The Secretary is directed to 

submit a spend plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that outlines how budgetary resources will be distributed among the eight offices funded under this heading. 

Departmental Enforcement Center.—The Committee is troubled 

by the results of the Inspector General’s February 2016 evaluation 

of the Departmental Enforcement Center [DEC]. The evaluation 

determined that when utilized, the DEC can effectively address 

issues related to poor performing and noncompliant grantees. However, the evaluation also determined that the DEC’s current location within the OGC has limited its ability to work with program 

offices, and as a result, has seriously undermined the overall effectiveness of the DEC to successfully implement risk-based monitoring and enforcement of grantees. In response, the Committee directs the DEC to be removed from the OGC’s organizational structure and report directly to the Deputy Secretary, consistent with its 

original intent and creation in 1997. The Committee further notes 

that the Department concedes that the Memoranda of Understanding [MOUs] between the DEC and program offices are overly 

restrictive and will review them with a goal of modification or 

elimination. The Committee directs the Department to report to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 

days after enactment of this act on the result of the reviews. 
88 

Circumvention of the Nomination Process.—The Committee remains troubled by the administration’s willful circumvention of the 

Appointments Clause of the Constitution which in Article II, section 2, clause 2 states, ‘‘and he shall nominate, and by and with 

the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, 

other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, 

and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments 

are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.’’ Specifically, the Committee notes the appointments 

last year of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretaries for the Offices of Community Planning and Development, Housing, and Public and Indian Housing. 

While this position has existed at other Federal agencies, it is 

new to the Department, and comes at a time when the Assistant 

Secretary position in these offices has been vacant for an extended 

period of time. The position of Assistant Secretary of Housing/Federal Housing Administration Commissioner has been vacant since 

October 24, 2014; the position of Assistant Secretary for Public and 

Indian Housing has been vacant since June 30, 2014; and the position of Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development has been vacant the longest, since May 18, 2012. The Committee is incredulous that the administration has elected to maintain the vacancy of these three mission critical positions and points 

to the administration’s decision to redirect a nominee, whose nomination was presented at the end of the 113th Congress, to a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary position in lieu of re-nominating 

the individual during the 114th Congress as a reflection of the 

clear disregard of the Appointments Clause. 

The Committee strongly encourages HUD and the administration 

to rethink the appointment of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretaries in the offices of Public and Indian Housing, Community 

Planning and Development, and Housing in the absence of incumbent Assistant Secretaries or putting forth nominations for those 

positions. While the Committee does not expressly forbid this practice, the Committee has reduced amounts included in the Committee’s recommendation by amounts equal to the salary and benefits 

of a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for offices where the position of Assistant Secretary is not filled or for which a nomination 

for that position is not currently pending before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs or has been reported by that Committee to the Senate. 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT OFFICES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $559,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 520,062,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 503,852,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administrative Support Offices [ASO] account is the backbone of HUD’s operations, and consists of several offices that aim 

to work seamlessly to provide the leadership and support services 

to ensure the Department performs its core mission and is compliant with all legal, operational, and financial guidelines. This account funds the salaries and expenses of the Office of the General 
89 

Counsel, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the 

Chief Procurement Officer, the Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity, the Office of Field Policy and Management, 

the Office of Strategic Planning and Management, the Office of the 

Chief Human Capital Officer, the Office of Administration, and the 

Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $503,852,000 for 

this account, which is $55,248,000 less than the fiscal year 2016 

enacted level and $16,210,000 less than the budget request. 

The Committee directs HUD’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer and the Office of the Human Capital Officer to submit quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on hiring and separations by program office. This report shall 

include position titles, location, associated FTE, and include the Office of the Inspector General and Government National Mortgage 

Association. 

Funds are made available as follows: 

Amount 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer ..................................................................................................... $41,641,000 

Office of Administration ................................................................................................................................... 202,823,000 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ............................................................................................................... 53,451,000 

Office of the Chief Procurement Officer .......................................................................................................... 19,130,000 

Office of Field Policy and Management .......................................................................................................... 52,568,000 

Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity ................................................................................. 3,891,000 

Office of the General Counsel ......................................................................................................................... 79,053,000 

Office of Strategic Planning and Management ............................................................................................... 5,147,000 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ........................................................................................................... 46,148,000 

Office of the General Counsel [OGC].—The Committee recommendation includes $79,053,000 for this office, which is 

$16,148,000 less than the budget request. This decrease is associated with the transfer of the Departmental Enforcement Center out 

of the OGC organizational structure. 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer [OCFO].—The Committee 

commends the work of the Appropriations Law Division in the 

OCFO and encourages the Department to maximize its use of this 

valuable resource. The Committee reminds the Department of its 

intent that all appropriations law issues be referred to and addressed by such division. HUD shall not alter the organizational 

structure of OCFO as in effect on January 1, 2015, without prior 

written approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

PROGRAM OFFICES SALARIES AND EXPENSES

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $205,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 220,932,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 220,500,000 
90 

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 $220,500,000 for 

this account, which is $432,000 less than the budget request and 

$15,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The Committee recommendation supports existing personnel, and reflects 

the establishment of a Working Capital Fund in fiscal year 2016 

for shared service costs 

The Committee directs HUD to prioritize the hiring of staff to fill 

critical positions in the following areas: staff for the management 

and oversight of Moving-to-Work PHAs; financial analysts for the 

Housing Choice Voucher program; and additional staff for the Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives to create efficiencies in program operations. 

The Committee directs HUD to inform the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this 

act regarding how it is implementing the Committee’s hiring direction. 

Small Public Housing Agencies.—The Committee recognizes the 

growing demand placed on small public housing agencies across the 

Nation. Given this recognition, the Committee believes that small 

agencies may face disproportionate regulatory burdens and the Department should simplify monitoring and compliance requirements. 

The Committee continues to urge HUD to eliminate excessive paperwork requirements and develop opportunities to achieve new efficiencies in management and operations for small public housing 

agencies. 

Central Office Cost Center Fees.—In 2014, the Office of Inspector 

General [OIG] released an audit of public housing operating and 

capital fund central office cost center [COCC] fees. The audit raised 

concerns about these fees and HUD’s oversight of them. The OIG 

recommended that the Department: eliminate the asset management fee, revise the asset management policy to ‘‘re-federalize’’ the 

fees paid into the COCC, and create policies and procedures for the 
91 

assessment and monitoring of the fees. HUD disputed the recommendations and has been working with the OIG to resolve these 

issues. As a result of these discussions and HUD’s demonstration 

of the need that PHAs have for the asset management fee, OIG 

agreed not to pursue their recommendation to eliminate asset management fees. In addition, HUD will initiate rulemaking to re-federalize fees paid into the COCC with a goal of implementing a final 

rule by no later than December 2017. The Committee has decided 

to take additional action and directs the Department to adhere to 

the ‘‘Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and 

Audit Requirements for Federal Awards,’’ requirements of 2 CFR 

200, and to notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations quarterly during fiscal year 2017 of any waivers of 2 CFR 200 

it requests from the Office of Management and Budget. The Committee shares concerns expressed by HUD’s Inspector General that 

HUD has failed to fully evaluate its fee for service model for public 

housing operating and capital funds. Accordingly, and consistent 

with the June 2014 Office of Inspector General report, HUD is directed to evaluate this model to gauge whether it is actually increasing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of administering 

the program and that the fee structure is reasonable. The Department is further directed to include any necessary program changes 

from this evaluation as part of its fiscal year 2019 congressional 

justifications. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $104,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 110,259,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding for Community 

Planning and Development [CPD] staff in headquarters and in 43 

field offices. CPD’s mission is to support successful urban, suburban and rural communities by promoting integrated approaches to 

community and economic development. CPD programs also assist 

in the expansion of opportunities for low- and moderate-income individuals and families in moving towards home ownership. The Assistant Secretary for CPD administers formula and competitive 

grant programs, as well as guaranteed loan programs, that help 

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 $110,000,000 for 

the staffing within this office, which is $259,000 less than the 

budget request and $5,200,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The recommended level of funding will support additional FTE focused on grant oversight and monitoring to help address backlog of grants and audit findings as well as shared service 

costs to be funded through the working capital fund established in 

fiscal year 2016. The Committee’s recommendation does not include 
92 

the Department’s request for additional staff for the Rental Assistance Demonstration. 

The Committee directs HUD to prioritize the hiring of staff to 

support the closeout of open audits and backlog of open grants, particularly as it relates to disaster recovery grants, before hiring in 

other areas, unless such staff are identified as backfilling missioncritical positions. 

The Committee directs HUD to inform the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this 

act regarding how it is implementing the Committee’s hiring direction. 

Promise Zones.—Since 2014, the Department has competitively 

made Promise Zone designations. These designations partner the 

Federal government with local communities to address multiple 

community revitalization challenges in a collaborative way and 

have demonstrated a commitment to results. To realize the full potential of these designations, the Committee encourages the Department to support these Promise Zone designations, and their 

Promise Zone Partnership Agreement commitments for their full 

duration. 

HOUSING

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $375,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 393,148,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 393,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 52 field locations in the Office of Housing. The Office of Housing is responsible for implementing programs to assist projects for occupancy by very low- and moderateincome households, to provide capital grants to nonprofit sponsors 

for the development of housing for the elderly and disabled, and to 

conduct several regulatory functions. The Office also administers 

Federal Housing Administration [FHA] programs. FHA administers HUD’s mortgage and loan insurance programs, which facilitate the financing of new construction, rehabilitation or the purchase of existing dwelling units. The Office also provides services 

to maintain and preserve homeownership, especially for underserved populations. This assistance allows lenders to make lower 

cost financing available to more borrowers for home and home improvement loans, and apartment, hospital, and nursing home loans. 

FHA provides a vital link in addressing America’s homeownership 

and affordable housing needs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $393,000,000 for 

staffing in the Office of Housing, which is $148,000 less than the 

budget request and $18,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level and reflects the establishment of a working capital fund 

in fiscal year 2016 for shared service costs. 
93 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $23,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 24,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 24,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in 16 field locations in the Office of Policy Development and Research [PD&R]. PD&R supports the Department’s efforts to help create cohesive, economically healthy 

communities. PD&R is responsible for maintaining current information on housing needs, market conditions, and existing programs, as well as conducting research on priority housing and community development issues. The office provides reliable and objective data and analysis to help inform policy decisions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,500,000 for 

this account, which is equal to the budget request and $1,400,000 

more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

PD&R collects and distributes data on HUD programs, the people HUD serves, and housing needs across the country, in addition 

to providing technical assistance in these areas. The information it 

makes available and the analysis it provides to the Department are 

essential to moving HUD to outcomes based performance measures. 

The Committee also relies on the data and research provided by 

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, 2016 ............................................................................. $72,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 74,235,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 74,235,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support 

staff in headquarters and in all regional offices in the Office of Fair 

Housing and Equal Opportunity [FHEO]. FHEO is responsible for 

investigating, resolving, and prosecuting complaints of housing discrimination, as well as conducting education and outreach activities to increase awareness of the requirements of the Fair Housing 

Act. The Office also develops and interprets fair housing policy, 

processes complaints, performs compliance reviews, and provides 

oversight and technical assistance to local housing authorities and 

community development agencies regarding section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $74,235,000, 

which is equal to the budget request and $2,235,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 
94 

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL AND HEALTHY HOMES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $7,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 7,826,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,075,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides salary and benefits funding to support the 

Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes [OLHCHH] 

headquarters staff. OLHCHH administers and manages the 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 $8,075,000 for this account, which is $249,000 more than the budget request and 

$1,075,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

The Committee is concerned that the Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes is not providing the Offices of Housing and 

Public and Indian Housing with the necessary oversight and assistance to effectively implement lead-related regulations. While these 

Offices are responsible for the oversight of their grantees, the Lead 

Office is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Lead Safe 

Housing and Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Rules through its Enforcement Division. The Committee’s recommendation does not 

fund the request for additional FTEs for the Programs, and Policy 

and Standards Divisions, and instead directs these funds, plus the 

additional funding above the request, be used to increase the FTE 

in the Lead Programs Enforcement Division from 5 to 10. This increase in resources will expand HUD’s capacity to conduct enforcement actions in Section 8 and Section 9 properties, as well as provide additional technical assistance and training. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Working 

Capital Fund [WCF] was established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016. The purpose of the WCF is to promote economy, efficiency, and accountability. Amounts transferred to the 

Fund are for Federal shared services used by offices and agencies 

of the Department, and are derived from centralized Salaries and 

Expenses accounts starting in 2016. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides the Secretary with the 

authority to transfer amounts provided in this title for salaries and 
95 

expenses, except those for the Office of Inspector General, to this 

account for the purpose of funding centralized activities. The Department is required to centralize and fund from this account any 

shared service agreements executed between HUD and another 

Federal agency. For fiscal year 2017, the Department is permitted 

to centralize and fund from this account: financial management, 

procurement, travel, relocation, human resources, printing, records 

management, space renovation, furniture, and supply services. The 

Committee expects that, prior to exercising discretion to centrally 

fund an activity, the Secretary shall have established transparent 

and reliable unit cost accounting for the offices and agencies of the 

Department that use the activity and shall have adequately trained 

staff within each affected office and agency on resource planning 

and accounting processes associated with the centralization of 

funds to this account. 

Further, prior to centralizing either furniture or space renovation, the Committee directs the Department to deliver a comprehensive, multi-year real property improvement plan which details all planned space realignments, capital improvements, maintenance requirements, and other costs associated with carrying out 

HUD’s most recent strategic plan; including any elements of the 

General Service Administration [GSA] study on the Weaver Building that HUD plans to include as part of its Reimbursable Work 

Agreement with GSA. 

Prior to exercising its authority to transfer funds for activities 

beyond what is required for shared service agreements, the Committee expects HUD to establish a clear execution plan for centralizing the additional activities and to properly vet that plan with 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to 

transferring such funds into the WCF. 

HUD shall include in its annual operating plan a detailed outline 

of its plans for transferring budgetary resources to the WCF in fiscal year 2017. 

Financial management, procurement, travel, and relocation costs 

for services provided to the Office of the Inspector General are covered by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $19,628,525,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 20,854,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,431,696,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the Section 8 tenant-based 

(voucher) program. Section 8 tenant-based housing assistance is 

one of the principle appropriations for Federal housing assistance, 

serving approximately 2.2 million families. The program also funds 

incremental vouchers for tenants who live in properties where the 

owner has decided to leave the Section 8 program. The program 

also provides for the replacement of units lost from the assisted 

housing inventory through its tenant protection vouchers. Under 

these programs, eligible low-income individuals and families pay 30 
96 

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 PHAs, mainstream 

vouchers, and Housing and Urban Development Veterans Supportive Housing [HUD–VASH] programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,431,696,000 for fiscal year 2017, including $4,000,000,000 as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1, 2017. This amount is 

$422,304,000 less than the budget request and $803,171,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The Committee recommends $18,355,000,000 for the renewal 

costs of Section 8 vouchers, which is $92,000,000 less than the 

budget request and $673,549,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 

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 

and existing reserves will provide sufficient resources to ensure 

that no current voucher holders are put at risk of losing their housing. It also supports the first time renewal of incremental vouchers 

that were funded in prior years, including HUD–VASH vouchers. 

The Committee will continue to monitor leasing data to make sure 

residents are protected. 

Set-Aside for Special Circumstances.—The Committee has pro- vided 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. 

HUD–VASH.—Since 2008, the Committee has provided more 

than $500,000,000 in targeted funding to address veterans’ homelessness. Communities across the country have been able to use 

these resources to make tremendous strides in addressing veterans’ 

homelessness. According to the Department of Veterans Administration, a number of diverse communities across the country have 

been able to announce an end to veterans homelessness, including: 

Lynn, Massachusetts; Mobile, Alabama; Montgomery County, 

Maryland; Gulfport and Biloxi, Mississippi; Houston, Texas; Las 

Vegas, Nevada; and New Orleans, Louisiana; as well as the State 

of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Virginia. These successes 
97 

are the result of hard work, and effective collaboration, and are aspirational for the rest of the country. However, since 2010, veterans’ homelessness has only declined by 36 percent nationally. For 

this reason, the Committee again rejects the budget proposal to 

prematurely end funding for new VASH vouchers and includes 

$50,000,000 for this purpose. 

The Committee also encourages the Department to use existing 

authority to recapture HUD–VASH voucher assistance from PHAs 

that voluntarily declare that they no longer have a need for that 

assistance, and reallocate it to PHAs with an identified need. The 

Committee directs HUD to expedite this process; ensuring that 

communities that have successfully ended veterans’ homelessness 

enable other communities to assist this population. The Committee 

encourages the Department to prioritize, as part of this reallocation, PHAs that project-base a portion of their HUD–VASH vouchers in high-cost areas. 

The Committee also recognizes the importance of the on-going 

pilot to expand the HUD–VASH program to American Indian veterans living in tribal areas. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 for rental assistance and associated administrative costs for Tribal HUD–VASH to serve Native American 

veterans that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness living on or 

near a reservation or other Indian areas. The Committee anticipates that most of this funding will be needed to renew previously 

provided assistance. To the extent funds remain after previouslyawarded assistance has been renewed, the remaining funds may be 

used to award new assistance based solely on need and administrative capacity. The Committee notes that examples of a lack of administrative capacity include entities with: open monitoring and 

audit findings from the Department or HUD’s Inspector General; 

an inability to maintain accurate reporting of financial records; a 

lack of willingness to work with the Office of Native American Programs regional offices, and; excessive unexpended Indian Housing 

Block Grant balances and current enforcement action regarding 

lack of progress on balances. Given the importance of reducing 

homelessness for veterans in Indian country, the Committee directs 

the Department to update the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations within 180 days of enactment of this act on the 

progress of this pilot. 

Administrative Fees.—The Committee recommends 

$1,768,696,000 for administrative fees, which is $308,304,000 less 

than the budget request and $118,696,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2016 enacted level. 

Lead-Based Paint.—Lead exposure and poisoning can have a significant impact on the development of children under the age of 6. 

Yet, HUD is unable to verify what actions the more than 700,000 

private landlords and property owners who participate in the program are taking to identify and address lead-based paint hazards 

in the more than 2 million housing units across the country. The 

Committee is extremely concerned that HUD lacks the necessary 

oversight and quality assurance of lead and routine physical inspections to determine whether lead-based paint hazards are 

present in these homes, particularly in units where there are children under the age of 6. The Committee is further concerned that 
98 

HUD is unable to identify which units or quantify how much of the 

housing choice voucher stock meet the standards currently set-forth 

in HUD’s physical inspection and lead-based paint hazard regulations. This information is essential to understanding the resource 

and health challenges faced by HUD, PHAs, and housing choice 

voucher residents. 

The Committee believes that the Department has the statutory 

authority to collect and analyze data on lead-based paint hazards 

in housing choice voucher units, and apply better quality assurance 

measures on routine physical inspections. While current HUD 

housing quality standards require that the physical condition of 

housing choice voucher units be free of health hazards, including 

lead-based paint, HUD’s regulatory standards lack consistency and 

scientific rigor. The Committee notes that HUD’s Housing Quality 

Standard [HQS] regulations limit lead inspections in housing 

choice voucher units to a visual review of chipped or deteriorated 

paint. Meanwhile, under the Uniform Physical Condition Standard 

[UPCS] regulations, public housing units are subject to more rigorous inspection standards, such as risk assessments, which require scientific testing of paint and dust samples found in the 

home. The Committee directs HUD to establish and implement a 

process that improves data collection and analysis of actions PHAs 

are taking to comply with lead-based paint regulations in housing 

choice voucher units by March 31, 2017, and report semi-annually 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on this 

progress. At a minimum, this report should include the steps HUD 

has taken to ensure PHAs and landlords are in statutory and regulatory compliance, as well as the number and location of units that 

are not in compliance with current inspections and lead-based 

paint regulations. The Committee also directs the Department to 

identify and report on the incidences and prevalence of lead-based 

paint hazards in housing choice voucher units. The Committee recognizes that States with the oldest housing stock will have more 

homes with lead-based paint, and notes that the mere presence of 

lead-based paint, where properly contained, should not preclude 

such units from participating in the housing choice voucher program. 

In order to improve communication with PHAs on lead-safe housing, the Committee directs the Department to issue clarifying guidance explaining the importance of lead-safe housing and the 

changes the Department is undertaking to align standards with 

CDC and improve its processes. The Committee recognizes that 

some PHAs are already effectively applying lead-safe standards, 

and directs HUD to identify and disseminate best practices on 

making, and keeping, units lead safe. In addition to disseminating 

best practices, the Department is directed to provide training on 

lead-safe housing issues targeted to PHA maintenance and property management staff. Finally, the Committee strongly encourages 

PHAs to work closely with tenants to improve their awareness of 

lead-based paint hazards in the home. 

Tenant Protection Vouchers.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $110,000,000 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. 
99 

However, the largest share of these vouchers is provided to tenants 

living in properties with expiring HUD assistance that may face 

rent increases if their owners opt out of HUD programs. In these 

instances, the vouchers ensure continued affordability of tenants’ 

housing. 

Section 811 Mainstream Vouchers.—The Committee recommends 

$110,000,000 to continue the rental assistance and administrative 

costs of this program. 

Family Unification Program [FUP].—Young adults associated 

with child welfare systems are more likely to experience homelessness as adults or as they transition to adulthood. The Committee 

recognizes that stable, affordable housing with appropriate services 

can help prevent children from being unnecessarily removed from 

their families and help youth exiting foster care transition to adulthood. The Committee is concerned that FUP vouchers are underutilized as a housing strategy to assist at-risk youth and that PHAs 

and local public child welfare agencies have had limited success in 

developing effective partnerships. According to a May 2014 report 

from HUD’s Office of Policy Development & Research, youth only 

comprise about 14 percent of the total program participants. Therefore, the Committee includes $20,000,000 for new FUP vouchers. 

The Committee directs HUD to prioritize the award of these new 

vouchers to PHAs that will target them to youth and PHAs that 

have partnered with their local public child welfare agency to ensure youth referrals for these vouchers. The Committee recognizes 

the current timeline of 18-months for youth vouchers is inadequate 

and administratively impracticable. In response, the Committee includes a provision permitting FUP vouchers to be used by youth 

who have left, or will shortly leave, foster care, to be used for up 

to 36 months or longer if the youth is participating in a family selfsufficiency program. The Committee also recognizes the need to expand youth eligibility for FUP vouchers and includes a provision 

increasing the age range of eligible youth to those who are 18 to 

24, and who have left foster care at age 14 or older, or will leave 

foster care within 90 days and are homeless or at risk of becoming 

homeless. The Committee also includes language permitting the 

Secretary to recapture voucher assistance from PHAs that no 

longer have a need for that assistance, and reallocate to it to PHAs 

with an identified need. 

The Committee is also concerned about how and when families 

and youth are being referred to receive FUP assistance. The Committee directs HUD to work with the Department of Health and 

Human Services’ Administration on Children and Families [ACF] 

to develop guidance and training materials necessary to improve 

connections between local agencies, increase collaboration, improve 

programs, goals, and supportive housing models that align at the 

local level. Further, HUD is directed to identify specific statutory 

or regulatory barriers either within the FUP program or child welfare service programs that limit individuals’ access to services and 

case management that can help improve outcomes for at-risk 

youth. The Committee directs HUD to report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations 180 days after enactment of 

this act on the status and results of these efforts. 
100 

Family Self-Sufficiency.—In fiscal year 2015, the Committee provided flexibility to HUD to improve connections between vouchers 

serving youth exiting foster care and the Family Self-Sufficiency 

program. The Committee remains interested in the implementation 

of this housing and services model, and looks forward to continued 

updates from the Department. 

Housing Mobility Demonstration.—The Committee recommendation includes $11,000,000 to implement a housing mobility demonstration. This demonstration is designed to help housing choice 

voucher residents move to lower-poverty areas and expand their access to jobs, better schools, and economic opportunity. A growing 

body of research highlights how moving to higher opportunity areas 

can have significant and positive long-term earnings and college attainment outcomes for children, and thereby make inroads at addressing generational poverty. However, many low-income residents face significant barriers to achieve or access this opportunity. 

Low-income families, including voucher holders, tend to be concentrated in high-poverty neighborhoods where schools may be 

under resourced, transportation is limited, and well-paying jobs 

may be scarce. However, there is very little evidence on ways housing and service providers can effectively counsel families on their 

options to move to low-poverty areas, or limit the barriers that prevent low-income families from moving to low-poverty areas. 

The recommended funding level will allow PHAs to test new 

strategies that enable families to successfully move to, and remain 

in, lower-poverty areas. The Committee expects HUD to use this 

demonstration to identify regulatory and administrative barriers to 

housing mobility and cost-effective strategies to facilitate and promote mobility. These funds may be used to deliver mobility services 

to families, including pre- and post-move counseling, rent deposits, 

as well as to offset the administrative costs of operating a mobility 

program. 

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Until fiscal year 2005, the Housing Certificate Fund provided 

funding for both the project-based and tenant-based components of 

the Section 8 program. Project-based rental assistance and tenantbased rental assistance are now separately funded accounts. The 

Housing Certificate Fund retains balances from previous years’ appropriations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has not included a rescission from the Housing 

Certificate Fund in fiscal year 2017, 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. 
101 

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $1,900,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 1,865,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,925,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for modernization and capital 

needs of PHAs (except Tribally Designated Housing Entities), including management improvements, resident relocation, and homeownership activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,925,000,000 

for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is $60,000,000 more 

than the budget request and $25,000,000 more than the fiscal year 

2016 enacted level. 

Of the amount made available under this account, $35,000,000 is 

for supportive services for residents of public housing under the 

Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency [ROSS] program, and 

$15,000,000 is for the Jobs-Plus demonstration. The Committee 

also recommends up to $10,000,000 to support the ongoing financial and physical assessment activities performed by the Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC] and $1,000,000 for the cost of administrative and judicial receiverships. The Committee does not include resources for the ConnectHome initiative, which provides a 

platform for collaboration among local governments, public housing 

agencies, Internet service providers, philanthropic foundations, 

nonprofit organizations and other relevant stakeholders to work together to produce local solutions for narrowing the digital divide in 

communities across the Nation served by HUD. However, the Committee encourages the Department to partner with these entities to 

help identify ways residents living in public housing can connect to 

broadband infrastructure, technical assistance, digital literacy 

training, and electronic devices that provide access to, and allow 

adoption of, high-speed Internet. 

Flexibility To Meet Pressing Needs.—In an effort to achieve an 

appropriate balance between flexibility and accountability, the 

Committee has included a provision permitting 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 for capital reserves so that PHAs 

can utilize this new tool to address the significant backlog of capital needs and better plan for future capital requirements. This 

should include how HUD will ensure that funds are being saved for 

and spent on needed capital projects. 
102 

Additionally, in 1998, Congress included provisions in the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act [QHWRA] to provide 

PHAs with the tools required to access capital markets to address 

substantial capital needs. QHWRA added section 30 to the U.S. 

Housing Act of 1937, authorizing PHAs ‘‘to mortgage or otherwise 

grant a security interest in any public housing project or other 

property of the public housing agency.’’ As a result of section 30, 

HUD created the Public Housing Mortgage Program [PHMP]. The 

PHMP allows PHAs to place a mortgage or other encumbrance on 

public housing properties where the subject property is owned by 

the PHA. The Committee understands however that the PHMP is 

not widely utilized due to HUD guidance that prohibits a first lien 

position of dwelling units. The Committee understands that this 

stipulation impedes PHAs’ ability to utilize the program. The Committee is concerned that HUD’s guidance with respect to section 30 

may actually be preventing the intended outcomes by limiting 

PHAs’ ability to access capital markets. The Committee directs the 

Department to report within 90 days of enactment of this act to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations regarding the utilization of PHMP, specifying existing program impediments, the 

Department’s plan to address those impediments, and if the PHMP 

can be a useful tool to address public housing capital needs. 

The Committee further notes that public housing is the only 

project-based rental assistance program that HUD administers that 

provides capital and operating funds through separate funding 

streams. The current structure presents restrictions that are difficult to implement and regulate, and underscores the isolation of 

public housing properties from mainstream real estate financing 

and management practices. A merger of these two programs has 

the potential to simplify the public housing program and reduce the 

administrative burden on PHAs that own and manage these properties. The Committee directs the Department to submit to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 days 

of enactment of this act an evaluation of the benefits and potential 

concerns of merging the operating and capital funds into a single 

public housing account. 

Safety and Security in Public Housing.—The Committee directs 

at least $5,000,000 of the $21,500,000 recommended for emergency 

capital needs 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 Committee believes that the level of funding recommended will support both repairs from disasters and safety and 

security improvements. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to fund eligible safety and security projects with a portion of these funds as quickly as possible. The Committee also includes language this year clarifying that unused funds from the 

emergency set-aside shall be used to address safety and security 

needs of PHAs and the residents who live in these properties. 

Quality Assurance of Physical Inspections.—The Committee is 

deeply troubled by reports of deplorable living conditions found in 
103 

some HUD-subsidized properties across the country. The scope of 

this issue spans geographic regions, highlights systemic problems, 

and calls into question the effectiveness of HUD oversight, and the 

Real Estate Assessment Center’s [REAC] inspections of HUD-assisted housing. At the Committee’s March 10, 2016 hearing on 

HUD’s budget request for fiscal year 2017, the Department acknowledged the need to improve REAC inspection protocols and expressed its commitment to improving its processes. These efforts 

include: proposing changes to civil monetary penalties; reducing 

the time it takes to issue tenant protection vouchers to tenant living in unsuitable living conditions; and the creation of an internal 

working group that will review and provide recommendations on 

how the inspection process can be improved. 

The Committee encourages the Department to work with the 

House and Senate authorizing committees on enforcement actions, 

including civil monetary penalties, that HUD can take to ensure 

PHAs and landlords maintain the physical quality of HUD-assisted 

units. However, the Committee notes that those actions do not improve the quality of the inspection protocols. 

Similarly, while the Committee is supportive of efforts to quickly 

issue tenant-protection vouchers, the issuance of these vouchers is 

a tacit acknowledgement that the Department has failed to ensure 

units are maintained as decent, safe and sanitary. Additionally, 

failure to maintain the physical condition of HUD-assisted properties results in a loss of critical affordable housing and tenant protection vouchers are of questionable value to families that encounter a lack of affordable housing in their communities. 

The Committee has been apprised of the action items developed 

by HUD’s inspection working group and is underwhelmed by the 

results. The Committee is disappointed that the Department has 

not taken this opportunity to develop a broader Departmental 

strategy that includes, for example, a review of whether a reverse 

auction is the best procurement practice for this line of business or 

address improvements to the oversight of inspections. The Committee is particularly disappointed that despite acknowledging that 

issues impacting the health of residents, including mold, do not 

trigger a sufficient subtraction of points to the inspection score, and 

the need to adjust the scoring system, those actions have not been 

identified by the working group as issues to address. 

The Committee understands that HUD is in the midst of hiring 

additional staff within REAC to increase quality assurance of physical inspections; continuing work on implementing a single inspection protocol for public housing and voucher units, including the review of voucher standards; and developing notices to address inspection changes. Rather than direct additional requirements and 

changes at this time, the Committee expects the Department to 

move swiftly to implement previously identified deficiencies in 

physical condition inspection protocols. The Committee further directs the Department to solicit comments from stakeholders, including tenants, to identify ways the Department can improve its 

inspection protocols and oversight. The Committee will continue to 

closely monitor the Department’s efforts and progress and directs 

the Department to submit to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations within 60 days of enactment of this act a report 
104 

identifying how HUD is improving the inspection process and related protocols, including quality assurance of inspections, identified actions yet to be implemented, the status of actions undertaken, and a timeline for completion of all actions. 

Lead-Based Paint.—In 2010, Abt. Associates reported on capital 

needs in public housing and found that approximately 62,000 public housing units required lead-based paint abatement. Yet, HUD 

is unable to verify what actions the more than 3,100 public housing 

agencies are taking to identify and address lead-based paint hazards in the more than 1 million public housing units across the 

country. The Committee is extremely concerned that HUD lacks 

the necessary oversight and quality assurance of lead and routine 

physical inspections to determine whether lead-based paint hazards are present in these homes, particularly in units where there 

are children under the age of 6. The Committee is further concerned that HUD is unable to identify which units or quantify how 

much of the public housing stock meet the standards currently setforth in HUD’s physical inspection and lead-based paint hazard 

regulations. This information is essential to understanding the resource and health challenges faced by HUD, PHAs, and public 

housing residents. 

The Committee believes that the Department has the statutory 

authority to collect and analyze data on lead-based paint hazards 

in public housing units, and apply better quality assurance measures on routine physical inspections. While current HUD housing 

quality standards require that the physical condition of housing 

choice voucher units be free of health hazards, including lead-based 

paint, HUD inadequately performs quality assurance and oversight 

measures to enforce this requirement. The Committee notes that 

HUD’s Lead-Safe Housing Rule requires PHAs to conduct a lead inspection and risk assessment in all public housing units that predate 1978, and where a child under the age of 6 currently or is expected to reside. These units are subject to rigorous inspection 

standards that require scientific testing of paint and dust samples 

found in the home, and where necessary, abating or performing interim controls to make the unit livable and safe for these children. 

Under the Uniform Physical Condition Standard [UPCS] regulations, PHAs must maintain verification that this work has been 

performed, and at the time of routine physical inspection, provide 

the inspector with proof that a Lead-Based Paint Inspection was 

conducted, and where necessary, that a Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Form has been signed by the PHA and the resident. However, 

PHAs are not required to store this documentation at the property, 

and inspectors are only verifying the presence of documentation— 

there is no regulatory requirement to verify the content or findings 

of lead-based paint inspections or, where necessary, steps PHAs 

have taken to address any lead-based paint hazards. The Committee is concerned that UPCS does not require inspectors to verify 

that a public housing unit has been evaluated for, and to the extent 

necessary, made safe of lead-based paint hazards in accordance 

with lead-based paint regulations. The Committee is further dismayed that HUD does not analyze the lead-based paint section 

from the inspection checklist to determine a PHA’s compliance with 

lead-based paint regulations and, where necessary, identify and 
105 

provide the necessary oversight to ensure they become compliant. 

The Committee directs HUD to establish and implement a process 

that improves data collection and analysis of actions PHAs are taking to comply with lead-based paint regulations in public housing 

units by March 31, 2017, and report semi-annually to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations on this progress. At a 

minimum, this report should include the steps HUD has taken to 

ensure PHAs are in statutory and regulatory compliance, as well 

as the number and location of units that are not in compliance with 

current inspections and lead-based paint regulations. The Committee also directs the Department to identify and report on the 

incidences and prevalence of lead-based paint hazards in public 

housing units. The Committee also directs the REAC to provide 

monthly updates to the public housing program offices, in the field 

and headquarters, on UPCS inspections conducted in public housing that do not meet the lead-based paint documentation requirements outlined in HUD’s regulation. 

As HUD amends its blood lead level standards to align with the 

CDC’s standards, HUD anticipates more than 1,500 public housing 

units, where children under the age of 6 reside, will require an environmental intervention. The Committee recommendation includes 

$25,000,000 to help PHAs address this new regulatory requirement. This funding shall be competitively awarded to PHAs to 

evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards in public housing 

units, which may include lead inspections, risk assessments, interim controls, and abatements. 

In order to improve communication with PHAs on lead-safe housing, the Committee directs the Department to issue clarifying guidance explaining the importance of lead-safe housing and the 

changes the Department is undertaking to align standards with 

CDC and improve its processes. The Committee recognizes that 

some PHAs are already effectively applying lead-safe standards, 

and directs HUD to identify and disseminate best practices on 

making, and keeping, units lead safe. In addition to disseminating 

best practices, the Department is directed to provide training on 

lead-safe housing issues targeted to PHA maintenance and property management staff. Finally, the Committee strongly encourages 

PHAs to work closely with tenants to improve their awareness of 

lead-based paint hazards in the home. 

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $4,500,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 4,569,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,675,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the payment of operating subsidies to approximately 3,100 PHAs (except Tribally Designated 

Housing Entities) with a total of approximately 1.2 million units 

under management in order to augment rent payments by residents in order to provide sufficient revenues to meet reasonable operating costs. 
106 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,675,000,000 

for the public housing operating fund, which is $106,000,000 more 

than the budget request and $175,000,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2016 enacted level. 

The Committee has included provisions providing PHAs with the 

ability to establish capital reserves. The Committee notes that 

many PHAs have taken steps to achieve operational savings by improving energy efficiency or otherwise reducing expenses, and has 

included a provision that establishes a utility conservation pilot 

that incentivizes a reduction in public housing utility consumption 

and costs, and provides PHAs with the ability to reinvest such savings in their properties and operations. 

The Committee also recognizes that PHAs face administrative 

and regulatory burdens and it reiterates support for regulatory and 

administrative relief that result in cost savings, while still maintaining effective and meaningful oversight. 

Over-income Residents in Public Housing.—The Committee believes that public housing assistance should go to those that truly 

need it. A July 2015 HUD OIG report found that more than 25,000 

public housing families have incomes above the income limits, 

which raises concern that current processes do not ensure that 

public housing funds are meeting their intended purpose. The Committee strongly encourages the Department to update its rules related to over-income public housing residents to ensure there is a 

process in place to identify over-income residents and that they are 

transitioned out of public housing, where appropriate. 

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $125,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 200,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 80,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative provides competitive grants 

to transform impoverished neighborhoods into functioning, sustainable, mixed-income neighborhoods with co-location of appropriate 

services, schools, public assets, transportation options, and access 

to jobs or job training. Choice Neighborhoods grants fund the preservation, rehabilitation, and transformation of public and HUD-assisted housing, as well as their neighborhoods. Grantees include 

PHAs, tribes, local governments, and nonprofit organizations. Forprofit 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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $80,000,000 for 

the Choice Neighborhoods initiative. This amount is $45,000,000 

less than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level and $120,000,000 less 

than the budget request. Of the total amount provided, no more 
107 

than $5,000,000 may be used for planning, including planning and 

action, grants. Choice Neighborhoods seeks to build on the HOPE 

VI program by expanding the types of eligible grantees and allowing funding to be used on HUD-owned or assisted housing, as well 

as the surrounding community. However, the Committee notes that 

the work to replace distressed public housing is far from complete. 

Therefore, the Committee has included language that stipulates 

that not less than $48,000,000 of the funding provided shall be 

awarded to projects where PHAs are the lead applicant. The goal 

of Choice Neighborhoods is to replace distressed housing as a way 

to improve communities and the lives of residents. Therefore, HUD 

should not limit applicants to a narrowly defined set of neighborhoods since it may prevent the replacement of eligible and worthy 

public or assisted housing projects that are outside such designated 

neighborhoods from competing for funding. 

The Committee also notes that successful community planning 

brings together multiple partners and funding sources that aid in 

the implementation of that plan. The Committee includes language 

this year directing that implementation grants may only be awarded to applicants who have previously been awarded planning 

grants. The Committee believes this will incentivize communities 

to engage in robust planning efforts before taking on transformation initiatives, while also ensuring the Department awards 

funds to those proposals that are most likely to result in successful 

implementation. 

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. 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, 2016 ............................................................................. $75,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 75,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 75,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] program provides funding to 

help Housing Choice Voucher, project-based Section 8, and Public 

Housing residents achieve self-sufficiency and economic independence. The FSS program is designed to provide service coordination 

through community partnerships that link residents with employment assistance, job training, child care, transportation, financial 

literacy, and other supportive services. The funding will be allocated through one competition to eligible PHAs to support service 
108 

coordinators who will serve both public housing and vouchers residents. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,000,000 for 

the FSS program in fiscal year 2017, an amount equal to the fiscal 

year 2016 enacted level and the budget request. 

The Committee strongly supports the FSS program, which helps 

provide public housing and Section 8 residents with the tools to improve their lives and achieve self-sufficiency. In fiscal year 2014, 

the Committee combined Section 8 voucher and public housing FSS 

programs so that public housing agencies could manage one unified 

program. Beginning in fiscal year 2015, the Committee included 

language to expand the program so that it could serve residents living in project-based Section 8 housing. This authority allows property owners to create escrow accounts and fund service coordinators with residual receipts. As a result of this language, HUD is piloting FSS at select project-based Section 8 properties. The Committee expects that through this pilot, HUD will identify best-practices and limitations to implementation, and take those lessons 

learned into consideration, before issuing a notice or guidance to 

take the program to scale. 

As HUD continues to work to streamline and expand the program, the Committee also expects HUD to identify best practices 

in the field that are successfully improving outcomes for residents. 

The Committee encourages HUD to consider best practices for how 

to increase participation, improve alignment between eligible uses 

of funding and milestones, and incorporate financial education into 

the program design. 

INDIAN BLOCK GRANTS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $710,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 780,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 714,000,000 

Note: The amounts for fiscal year 2016 enacted and the budget request include amounts funded or requested in the Community Development Fund for the Indian Community Development 

Block Grant program. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds the Indian Housing Block Grant Program, as 

authorized under title I of the Native American Housing Assistance 

and Self-Determination Act of 1996 [NAHASDA]. This program 

provides a funding allocation on a formula basis to Indian tribes 

and their tribally designated housing entities to help address the 

housing needs within their communities. Under this block grant, 

Indian tribes use performance measures and benchmarks that are 

consistent with the national goals of the program, but can base 

these measures on the needs and priorities established in their own 

Indian housing plan. 

This account also funds the Indian Community Development 

Block Grant Program, as authorized under title I of the Housing 

and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. These 

funds are awarded on a competitive basis to Indian tribes for the 

funding of tribal community development needs. 
109 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

To increase the transparency around funding for Native Americans, the Committee recommendation provides for both the Indian 

Housing Block Grant and Indian Community Development Block 

Grant programs under a single heading. 

The Committee recommends a total of $648,500,000 for the Indian Housing Block Grant [IHBG] and Title VI Loan Guarantee 

programs, of which $646,500,000 is for IHBG formula grants and 

$2,000,000 is for credit subsidy to support a Title VI guaranteed 

loan level not to exceed $17,857,142. The recommended level of 

funding is $4,000,000 more than the amount provided in fiscal year 

2016 and $51,500,000 below the budget request. 

The recommendation also includes $60,000,000 for the Indian 

Community Development Block Grant [ICDBG] program. The recommended level of funding is equal to the amount provided in fiscal year 2016 and $20,000,000 below the budget request. Recognizing the tremendous needs in Indian Country and the limited resources available to address these challenges, the Committee includes a new provision this year limiting the amount of funding a 

tribe may receive from the IHBG program to not more than 10 percent. The Committee directs HUD to collect data as part of tribes’ 

Indian Housing Plan submissions on new program activity that is 

generated due to this provision. 

IHBG is a vital resource for tribal governments to address the 

dire housing conditions in Indian Country, and access to affordable 

housing remains in a critical state for many tribes across the country. Native Americans are twice as likely to live in poverty compared to the rest of the Nation. As a result, the housing challenges 

on tribal lands are daunting. According to the U.S. Census American Community Survey for 2006–2010, 8.1 percent of homes on 

American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust land are 

overcrowded, compared to 3.1 percent of households nationwide. 

The number of households on reservation lands with severe housing costs that spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing has risen 46 percent over the past decade. 

The Committee believes the housing goals for American Indians 

and Alaska Natives established in the NAHASDA, including section 802, remain a priority. The housing programs authorized in 

NAHASDA serve communities who are disproportionately low income, more likely to experience homelessness or overcrowded living 

conditions and unable to utilize traditional lending sources. The 

programs have aided thousands of individuals and families in the 

pursuit of safe, affordable housing and the Committee encourages 

HUD to continue providing appropriate assistance and resources 

based on continued demonstrable need. 

Coordinated Environmental Reviews for Tribal Housing and Related Infrastructure.—In fiscal year 2015, the Committee directed 

HUD to collaborate with the Council on Environmental Quality 

and affected Federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency, to develop a coordinated environmental review 

process to simplify tribal housing development and its related in-
110 

frastructure needs. The Committee expects HUD to continue to update the Committee on the status and progress of these ongoing efforts. 

Technical Assistance.—Limited capacity hinders the ability of 

many tribes to effectively address their housing needs. The Committee recommendation includes $5,500,000 for technical assistance 

needs in Indian country to support both the IHBG and ICDBG programs. The Committee directs that these technical assistance funds 

be administered by PIH and not be merged with the broader Community Compass initiative administered by the Office of Policy Development and Research. The Committee expects HUD to use the 

technical assistance funding provided to aid tribes with capacity 

challenges, especially tribes receiving small grant awards. The 

funding should be used for training, contract expertise, and other 

services necessary to improve data collection, increase leveraging, 

and address other needs identified by tribes. The Committee also 

expects that these technical assistance funds will be provided to 

both national and regional organizations with experience in providing technical assistance that reflects the unique needs and culture of Native Americans. 

Oversight Plan.—Within 30 days of enactment of this act, the 

Committee directs HUD to submit a fiscal year 2017 oversight plan 

for the funds under this heading to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Program account Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................................... $7,500,000 $1,190,476,190 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................................... 5,500,000 1,341,463,415 

Committee recommendation ................................................................................... 6,500,000 1,585,365,854 

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 $6,500,000 in 

program subsidies to support a loan level of $1,585,365,854. This 

subsidy amount is $1,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2016 enacted subsidy level and $1,000,000 more than the budget request. 

Included in the Committee’s recommendation is $1,000,000 to assist tribes and tribally designated housing entities to construct 

rental housing for law enforcement, healthcare, educational, and 
111 

other skilled workers. The development of this rental stock is critical to enable tribes to attract and retain professionals in these 

fields who are often missing in Indian country due to the lack of 

existing rental housing and the distances between tribal lands and 

available housing. The Committee is concerned that the Department has failed to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, as previously directed, on how HUD has 

utilized the funding provided for administrative contract expenses 

including management processes and systems. The Committee is 

equally troubled that in addition to failing to submit the required 

information, the Department has also failed to use such funds to 

address critical systemic management and oversight shortcomings 

despite having over $2.6 million in unobligated balances for this 

purpose. While the Committee believes this program is important 

to helping meet housing needs in Indian country, the lack of action 

by the Department compels the Committee to direct the Office of 

Inspector General to undertake a review of the management and 

oversight of the section 184 loan program, including related information technology systems, and to report its finding to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 120 days of enactment of this act. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... $500,000 

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

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 $5,000,000 for 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program, which is 

$5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level and 

$4,500,000 more than the budget request. 

The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program [NHHBG] 

provides funding for affordable housing activities on Hawaiian 

home lands to eligible Native Hawaiian families. This program is 

necessary given the general living conditions and poverty rates for 

Native Hawaiians. According to the 2011–2013 American Community Survey, approximately 19 percent of Native Hawaiian households were overcrowded compared to 3.3 percent of all households 

in the United States, and about 18.4 percent of Native Hawaiians 

in Hawaii live in poverty. Meanwhile, the median value of an 

owner-occupied home in Hawaii was $495,400, compared to 

$173,200, nationwide making access to affordable housing extremely challenging for residents of the isolated, ocean-locked 

State. 
112 

Hawaiian home lands are dispersed throughout the Hawaiian Islands and are often in less desirable areas with steep terrain that 

is difficult to access and develop. The challenges involved with development of this raw land add to the already high cost of construction in the State. Project development is a lengthy process that involves complex environmental reviews with strict water resource 

requirements, procurement of construction contracts, and installation of entire public works systems. These challenges have impeded 

the Department of Hawaiian Homeland’s ability to advance the traditional model of single housing family community developments. 

The Committee is concerned that this traditional housing model 

does not address the severe housing needs of the 34,100 low-income 

Native Hawaiian households that are eligible for assistance under 

the NHHBG program. The Committee directs HUD to ensure that 

the funds provided are administered to maximize the provision of 

affordable housing through the construction of high density, multifamily affordable housing and rental units, as well as housing 

counseling services and the rehabilitation of housing on Native Hawaiian home lands that do not meet safe and sanitary housing 

building standards. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $335,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 335,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 335,000,000 

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 $335,000,000 for 

the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS [HOPWA] program. This level of funding is equal to the President’s budget request and the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The Committee continues to include language requiring HUD to allocate these funds 

in a manner that preserves existing HOPWA programs, to the extent that those programs are determined to be meeting the needs 

of persons with HIV/AIDS. 

HOPWA Formula Modernization.—The Committee recommendation once again includes a change to the HOPWA formula re-
113 

quested in the President’s budget and part of the administration’s 

comprehensive National HIV/AIDS Strategy. Currently, 55 percent 

of the statutorily required cumulative AIDS cases used to determine the formula program represent deceased individuals. The 

Committee recommendation seeks to distribute funding more equitably to reflect the HIV epidemic’s impact among communities with 

highest burden of HIV cases while addressing the increasingly disproportionate impact of HIV on communities of poverty and color. 

The formula modernization requires that 75 percent of the formula funds be distributed to cities with population greater than 

500,000 and with more than 2,000 persons living with HIV, and 

the remaining 25 percent distributed to States and metropolitan 

statistical areas based on fair market rents (to account for high 

housing costs in certain areas) and area poverty indexes (to account 

for high-poverty areas lacking services). The Committee is aware of 

concerns in certain communities that would receive substantial reduction in funding as a result of the formula modernization, and 

has included language to prevent any grantee from losing more 

than 5 percent or gaining more than 10 percent of the average 

share of the total formula allocation of the previous fiscal year. The 

Committee directs HUD to prioritize any competitive funding available, after renewing all competitive expiring contracts, to grantees 

that lose funding due to the formula modernization. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $3,000,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 2,800,000,000 

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

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 insular 

areas. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $3,000,000,000 for Community Development Block Grants [CDBG]. The recommended amount is 

$200,000,000 more than the budget request and equal to the fiscal 
114 

year 2016 enacted level. CDBG funding provides States and entitlement communities with resources that allow them to undertake a 

wide range of community development activities, including public 

infrastructure improvements, housing rehabilitation and construction, job creation and retention, and public services that primarily 

benefit low and moderate income persons. The Committee urges 

CDBG grantees to consider funding eligible activities and projects 

that increase access to transit and intercity passenger rail options 

for persons of low and moderate income. 

The flexibility associated with CDBG enables State and local governments to tailor solutions to effectively meet the unique needs of 

their communities. The Committee notes the importance of States 

and local grantees meeting the program’s three national objectives, 

as they utilize the program’s resources to address a wide range of 

community needs. As HUD works with communities to determine 

eligible activities that meet the national objective of benefiting lowand-moderate-income persons, the Committee encourages the Department to extend flexibility for rural communities under 1,000 

residents to use alternate sources of data to establish Low-Moderate Income Survey Data [LMISD] when American Community 

Survey [ACS] data is considered by the Community Development 

Block Grant applicant to be unreliable. 

To ensure the program remains flexible, but also accountable and 

transparent, the Committee recommendation continues provisions 

in bill language that prohibit any community from selling its 

CDBG award to another community and that any funding provided 

to a for-profit entity for an economic development project funded 

under this act undergo appropriate underwriting. The Committee 

has included these provisions to address concerns raised about how 

program dollars have been used and mitigate risks associated with 

it. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Program account Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2016 ....................................................................................................... ............................ $300,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ................................................................................................... ............................ $300,000,000 

Committee recommendation ........................................................................................... ............................ $300,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal loan 

guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and nonentitlement communities to cover the costs of acquiring real property, rehabilitation of publicly owned real property, housing rehabilitation, and other economic development activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides a loan level guarantee 

of $300,000,000 which is equal to the fiscal year 2016 enacted level 

and the budget request. The Committee requires HUD to collect 

fees to offset credit subsidy costs such that the program operates 

at a zero credit subsidy cost. 
115 

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. 

The Committee notes that in November 2015, HUD issued the 

necessary rules to implement a fee-based structure for this program. The Committee expects HUD to ensure that a financing 

structure is in place by the beginning of the fiscal year so that this 

important program remains available to communities. In addition, 

HUD must provide communities with information and any technical assistance needed to successfully utilize the program. 

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $950,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 1 ......................................................................... 950,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 950,000,000 

1 Includes $10,000,000 for the Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This program provides assistance to States and local governments for the 

purpose of expanding the supply and affordability of housing to 

low-income and very low-income people. Eligible activities include 

tenant-based rental assistance, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing, and housing construction. 

To participate in the HOME program, State and local governments 

must develop a comprehensive housing affordability strategy. There 

is a 25 percent matching requirement for participating jurisdictions, which can be reduced or eliminated if they are experiencing 

fiscal distress. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $950,000,000 for 

the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This amount is 

equal to the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The amount is equal to 

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 recommendation does not include the requested statutory changes to the HOME program. The Committee encourages 

the Department to work with the authorizing committee on these 

statutory changes to the program. 

Affordable Housing Needs.—The Committee notes the substantial 

gains made by HOME in increasing the supply and affordability of 

housing for low-income families. According to the March 2016 

HOME National Production Report, since 1992 States and localities 

have used $26 billion in HOME funds to leverage an additional 

$117 billion in public and private resources to build or preserve 1.2 

million homes and provide rental assistance to 313,558 families. 

HOME has been particularly successful in helping extremely lowincome families (at or below 30 percent of area median income) 

who have received 40 percent of assistance for affordable rental 
116 

housing during the past 5 years. The Committee stresses the importance of HUD working with communities that are seeking Federal resources to directly assist low-to-moderate income homeowners with improving and renovating their homes to maintain 

property values and create sustainable, livable, attractive, and safe 

neighborhoods. HOME is also a critical part of meeting the supportive housing needs of the low-to-moderate income individuals 

and families, including veterans, persons with disabilities and seniors. In addition, it is the only Federal housing program exclusively 

focused on providing States with the flexible financing needed to 

address our most pressing housing needs. 

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $55,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 54,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program is comprised of the Self-Help Homeownership Program 

[SHOP], which assists low-income homebuyers willing to contribute 

‘‘sweat equity’’ toward the construction of their houses. These funds 

increase nonprofit organizations’ ability to leverage funds from 

other sources. This account also includes funding for the Capacity 

Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing Program, as well as assistance to rural communities as authorized 

under sections 6301 through 6305 of Public Law 110–246, and 

funds the rehabilitation and modifications of homes for Veterans 

that are low-income and disabled as authorized by section 1079 of 

Public Law 113–291. These programs help to develop the capacity 

of nonprofit community development organizations to carry out 

community development and affordable housing projects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $54,000,000 for the Self-Help and 

Assisted Homeownership Program, which is $1,700,000 less than 

the fiscal year 2016 enacted level, and $54,000,000 more than the 

request. The Committee rejects the administration’s proposal to 

shift a portion of the funding for these activities to the HOME program, and make the section 4 program activities an eligible activity 

of funds transferred from various programs to the Office of Policy 

Development and Research. The Committee supports leaving this 

heading as a standalone account and opposes efforts to shift these 

funds into other accounts. The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for SHOP, as authorized under section 11 of the 

Housing Opportunity Extension Act of 1996; $35,000,000 for capacity building as authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration 

Act of 1993; $5,000,000 to carry out capacity building activities in 

rural communities; and, $4,000,000 million for a program to rehab 

and modify housing for Veterans that are low-income and disabled. 

The Committee notes that funding for technical assistance is being 

provided under the Office of Policy Development and Research and 

directs funds available for section 4 to be used solely for capacity 

building activities. 
117 

The Rural Capacity Building Program is intended for truly national organizations. For the purposes of the National Rural Capacity Building Notification of Funding Availably [NOFA], the Committee directs HUD to define an eligible national organization as 

a nonprofit entity that has on-going experience in rural housing, including experience working with rural housing organizations, local 

governments, and Indian tribes, as evidenced by past and continuing work in one or more States in eight or more of HUD’s Federal regions. 

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $2,250,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 2,664,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,330,000,000 

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 the Nation’s most vulnerable populations. These grants 

assist localities in addressing the housing and service needs of a 

wide variety of homeless populations while developing coordinated 

Continuum of Care [CoC] systems that ensure the support necessary to help those who are homeless attain housing and move toward self-sufficiency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,330,000,000 

for Homeless Assistance Grants in fiscal year 2017. This amount 

is $334,000,000 less than the President’s request, and $80,000,000 

more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

As part of the Committee recommendation, at least 

$2,013,000,000 will support the Continuum of Care Program, including the renewal of existing projects, and the Rural Housing 

Stability Assistance Program. Based on the renewal burden, HUD 

may also support planning and other activities authorized by the 

HEARTH Act. The recommendation also includes at least 

$250,000,000 for the emergency solutions grants program [ESG]. 

The Committee supports HUD’s efforts to leverage existing housing resources, such as Section 8 vouchers, to serve the homeless. 

While the Committee notes that permanent supportive housing is 

more efficient and effective at addressing homelessness among 

adults than transitional housing, it is also aware that in some communities transitional housing has been found to be effective. To 

avoid service gaps at the local level, the Committee encourages the 

Department to be receptive to renewing such transitional housing 

projects. The Committee also supports replacing existing, underperforming projects with new permanent supportive housing projects. 
118 

Therefore, if funds remain available in this account after meeting 

renewal demands and funding ESG, HUD may use it for new 

projects, provided that such projects are targeted to areas with the 

greatest need, as measured by homeless data. 

Data on Youth Homelessness.—The Committee believes an accurate count is critical to understanding the scale of youth homelessness. While the Annual Homelessness Assessment Report [AHAR] 

provides Congress and the public with meaningful information on 

the progress in ending homelessness, other Federal agencies have 

youth-specific data that can help communities better understand 

the scope of youth homelessness and housing instability in their 

area. The Committee continues to direct HUD to incorporate additional Federal data on youth homelessness into the AHAR. 

Comprehensive Interventions to Prevent and End Youth Homelessness.—The Committee recommendation includes $40,000,000 to 

continue implementation of comprehensive approaches to serving 

homeless youth 

Clarifying Eligibility and Documentation Requirements for Homeless Youth.—The Committee remains concerned that service providers are turning homeless youth away due to a lack of clarity on 

HUD’s existing eligibility and documentation requirements. While 

HUD has issued some guidance on how youth qualify for assistance 

under the current definition, service providers remain challenged 

with identifying and serving youth who are unaccompanied or head 

of household, faced with domestic violence, trafficking, or other unsafe circumstances—the most vulnerable and hard-to-reach homeless youth—due to lack of clarity in HUD’s regulation and guidance. The Committee continues to hear from service providers that 

documentation requirements pose a barrier for individuals and 

families, especially youth, to access HUD programs and services. 

The Committee includes language that waives the requirement for 

youth 24 and under to provide third-party documentation to receive 

housing and supportive services within the Continuums of Care. 

The Committee strongly believes documentation requirements 

should not be a basis for denying access to necessary services. The 

Committee believes the Department shares the goal of effectively 

addressing youth homelessness and ensuring no youth eligible go 

unserved where there is the local capacity to house and/or provide 

services. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Department to 

continue to clarify program requirements through guidance, notice 

and webcasts as appropriate. 

Performance Partnership Pilot.—The Committee has continued 

language permitting HUD to partner with other Federal agencies 

in the Performance Partnership Pilot program, a cross-Federal 

agency initiative serving disconnected youth through innovative, 

cost-effective, and outcome-focused strategies. The Committee believes there is a critical role HUD can play in this pilot, especially 

as communities seek to address the housing and self-sufficiency 

needs of disconnected youth. 

HUD shall inform the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 45 days after enactment of this act, how the 

Department will strategically align within the Performance Partnership Pilot program. This shall also include: (1) the amount and 

source of funding the Department will allocate to the pilot; (2) the 
119 

Department’s role in grantee criteria and selection processes, and; 

(3) the Department’s role in oversight and accountability for its 

contributions. Not later than 15 days after pilots have been announced, the Department shall brief the Committees on the scope 

of each pilot project, including goals, objectives and intended outcomes, and an outline of specific metrics that will be used to evaluate and determine the effectiveness of the pilot project and its outcomes. 

Annual Homeless Assessment Report.—AHAR is a result of Congressional directives beginning in 2001, that charged the Department to collect data on homelessness, using the newly implemented 

Homeless Management Information System [HMIS]. HMIS data, 

information provided by Continuums of Care, and a point-in-time 

count of sheltered and unsheltered persons from one night in January of each year informs AHAR. The Committee is encouraged that 

HUD is sharing homeless data widely, and that Federal, State and 

local service providers use AHAR to determine needs and develop 

strategies to address homelessness. 

The Committee believes HMIS can be used as a platform for information gathering in other Federal programs. Streamlining data 

to reflect the various Federal data sources will allow the Federal 

Government to better understand the scope and needs of homeless 

populations, to then inform a strategic alignment of Federal services. The Committee directs HUD to incorporate additional Federal 

data on homelessness in the AHAR. This information is important 

to ensure that communities develop and implement policies that respond to local needs. To support continued data collection and 

AHAR, the Committee has included $7,000,000 to support AHAR 

data collection and analysis. The Department shall submit the 

AHAR report by August 29, 2017. The Committee further hopes 

that HUD’s efforts to increase participation in the HMIS effort will 

lead to improved information about and understanding of the Nation’s homeless. 

Renewal Costs.—The Committee directs HUD to continue to include 5-year projections of the costs of renewing existing projects 

as part of the fiscal year 2018 budget justification. This should include estimated costs of renewing permanent supportive housing. 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... $50,000,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Rental Assistance Demonstration [RAD] was authorized in 

fiscal year 2012 to preserve public and other multifamily housing. 

Under existing authorities, PHAs and other owners of rental properties assisted under the Public Housing, Moderate Rehabilitation 

[Mod Rehab], Moderate Rehabilitation Single-Room Occupancy 

[Mod Rehab SRO], Rent Supplement [Rent Supp] and Rental Assistance Payment [RAP] programs are offered the option to convert 

their properties to Section 8 contracts. 
120 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes provisions permitting 

Section 202 PRAC properties to convert to Section 8 contracts. The 

current contracts are limited to 1 year and impede successfully addressing capital needs for these properties. Conversion to multiyear Section 8 contracts will enable properties to leverage private 

financing for capital improvements, enabling these properties to remain a source of critical affordable housing for low-income elderly 

residents. The Committee recommendation also includes $4,000,000 

for the Rental Assistance Demonstration, which is $4,000,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level and $46,000,000 less than 

the budget request. This funding is limited to providing additional 

rental subsidy for Section 202 PRAC properties converting to Section 8 contracts that will not be able to successfully convert at the 

current subsidy amounts. 

The Committee recommendation also includes the following proposals to facilitate additional conversions of HUD-assisted properties: (1) increases the current unit cap on Public Housing conversions to 250,000; (2) eliminates the deadline of September 30, 2018, 

for submission of RAD applications; (3) enables Section 202 PRAC 

properties to convert to Section 8 contracts; (4) promotes the preservation of multifamily properties in high-cost areas; (5) standardizes ownership and control requirements for converted Public Housing properties in situations where low-income housing tax credits 

are used or where foreclosure, bankruptcy, or default occurs; and 

(6) protects tenants’ right to continue occupancy under second component conversions. 

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $10,620,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 10,816,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,901,000,000 

PROGRAM 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. 
121 

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $10,901,000,000 for the annual renewal of project-based contracts, 

of which up to $235,000,000 is for the cost of contract administrators. The recommended level of funding is $281,000,000 more than 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2016 and is $85,000,000 more 

than the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation rejects 

the administration’s proposed change to the medical deduction calculation, which results in the increased funding above the requested level. 

Performance-Based Contract Administrators.—Performance-based 

contract administrators [PBCAs] are typically PHAs 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, among other tasks. 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, reduce improper payments, protect tenants and ensure properties are 

well maintained. 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 Committee directs the 

Department to solicit and award PBCA contracts under full and 

open competition without geographic limitation in accordance with 

the Competition in Contracting Act and the Federal Acquisition 

Regulations. The Committee is concerned that proposals to reduce 

the scope of work performed by PBCAs, diminish the applicability 

of Federal law, or consolidate PBCAs into regional awards versus 

State-by-State will have a detrimental effect on the oversight of 

these HUD-assisted properties and the individuals and families 

that rely on this critical source of affordable housing. 

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. 

The Committee is deeply troubled by recent reports of properties 

across the country experiencing a level of physical deficiencies so 

severe as to be indicative of systemic failures within the Department’s oversight and inspection processes. Neither residents nor 

taxpayers are well served when poor conditions are allowed to continue. It is inexcusable that residents are ever placed into substandard housing with serious violations, but it is doubly offensive 

when the taxpayers are subsidizing these unfit units. While there 

is a tension between holding property owners responsible and ensuring tenants do not lose their housing, HUD has tools at its disposal to hold owners accountable without putting tenants at risk. 

To ensure continued attention to this issue, the Committee recommendation strengthens a general provision that requires HUD 

to take specific steps to ensure that physical deficiencies in properties are quickly addressed, and requires the Secretary to take explicit actions if the owner fails to maintain them. These actions include imposing civil money penalties, working to secure a different 

owner for the property, or transferring the Section 8 contract to another the property. The Committee wants to preserve critical 

project-based Section 8 contracts, and believes this goal can be 
122 

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 quarterly reports to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on projects 

that receive multiple exigent health and safety violations, physical 

inspection scores below 60, or have received an unsatisfactory management and occupancy review within the past 36 months. Such reports shall also include information on when the next inspection of 

the property will occur, and the Department’s plans for resolution 

of the deficiencies. 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, and improved inspection protocols, the 

number of troubled properties will be reduced. 

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $432,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 505,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 505,000,000 

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 $505,000,000 for the 

section 202 program. This level is $72,300,000 more than the level 

provided in fiscal year 2016 and equal to the budget request. The 

Committee recommendation includes $427,000,000 in new appropriations in addition to carryover balances and residual receipts to 

fully fund all annual project-rental assistance contract renewals 

and amendments, and $75,000,000 for service coordinators and the 

continuation of existing congregate service grants. 

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $150,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 154,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 154,000,000 

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 pro-
123 

gram provided capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition, 

rehabilitation, or construction of housing for persons with disabilities, as well as rental assistance to support operational costs. 

Since fiscal year 2012, HUD has transitioned to expanding capacity 

by providing project rental assistance to State housing financing 

agencies or other appropriate entities that act in partnership with 

State health and human service agencies to provide supportive 

services as authorized by the Frank Melville Supportive Housing 

Investment Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–374). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $154,000,000 for 

the section 811 program. This level is equal to the budget request 

and is $3,400,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

This level of funding, in addition to residual receipts, recaptures, 

and other unobligated balances, supports all PRAC renewals and 

amendments. Should the total available resources exceed the need 

for renewals, the Secretary shall direct such resources to a new 

competition for project rental assistance to State housing finance 

agencies. 

HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $47,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 47,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 47,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Counseling Assistance Program provides comprehensive housing counseling services to eligible homeowners and 

tenants through grants to nonprofit intermediaries, State government entities, and other local and national agencies. Eligible counseling activities include pre- and post-purchase education, personal 

financial management, reverse mortgage product education, foreclosure prevention, mitigation, and rental counseling. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $47,000,000 for 

the Housing Counseling Assistance program, which is equal to the 

budget request and the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. These funds 

will help to provide individuals and families across the country 

with sound advice to make better informed housing decisions. Specifically, it will support competitive counseling grants and training 

activities. Housing counseling organizations provide a wide variety 

of counseling services, including those to assist with preventing 

foreclosure and homelessness. In addition, the administrative contract support funding includes resources for financial audits and 

technical assistance. 

The Committee continues language requiring HUD to obligate 

counseling grants within 180 days of enactment of this act, as well 

as permitting HUD to publish multiyear NOFAs, contingent on annual appropriations. This should result in administrative savings 

for HUD and its grantees. 
124 

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $30,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 20,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000 

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 $20,000,000 for 

HUD-assisted, State-aided, noninsured rental housing projects, 

consistent with the budget request. This amount is $10,000,000 

less than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The Committee recommendation includes a provision to allow the conversion of these 

projects to Section 8, at no additional cost. The Committee hopes 

that the conversion of these projects, through the Rental Assistance 

Demonstration, will lead to the eventual elimination of these outdated programs. 

PAYMENT TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $10,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 11,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,500,000 

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 $10,500,000 to support the manufactured housing standards programs, of which the full amount of 

$10,500,000 is expected to be derived from fees collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund account. No direct appropriation is provided. The total amount recommended is 

$1,000,000 less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 

2016 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. 
125 

The Committee has not provided additional funding for this program, as an increase in funding would not reflect or correspond 

with this decline in production. 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation on direct 

loans 

Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Administrative 

contract expenses 

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................... $5,000,000 $400,000,000,000 $130,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ............................................................ 5,000,000 400,000,000,000 160,000,000 

Committee recommendation .................................................... 5,000,000 400,000,000,000 130,000,000 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation on direct 

loans 

Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2016 ....................................................................................................... $5,000,000 $30,000,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ................................................................................................... 5,000,000 30,000,000,000 

Committee recommendation ........................................................................................... 5,000,000 30,000,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the 

mortgage and loan insurance activity of HUD mortgage/loan insurance programs. These include the mutual mortgage insurance 

[MMI] fund, cooperative management housing insurance [CMHI] 

fund, general insurance [GI] fund, and the special risk insurance 

[SRI] fund. For presentation and accounting control purposes, these 

are divided into two sets of accounts based on shared characteristics. The unsubsidized insurance programs of the mutual mortgage 

insurance fund and the cooperative management housing insurance 

fund constitute one set; and the general risk insurance and special 

risk insurance funds make up the other. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has included the following amounts for the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program account: a limitation on guaranteed loans of $400,000,000,000, a limitation on direct loans of 

$5,000,000, and $130,000,000 for administrative contract expenses. 

For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends 

$30,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans and a limitation on direct loans of $5,000,000. 

The Committee includes a general provision in the bill lifting the 

cap on the number of HECM loans that can be insured during fiscal year 2017, consistent with prior years. 

The Committee is aware of concerns that deficiencies in establishing conveyable conditions for FHA insured foreclosed properties 

are inhibiting the ability to provide proper maintenance for these 

properties. To alleviate these concerns, the Committee directs the 

Government Accountability Office to examine the operating effectiveness and efficiency of the Federal Housing Administration in 

reaching determinations of conveyable conditions on foreclosed 

properties and report its findings to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than September 29, 2017. 
126 

The FHA is responsible for facilitating mortgages for individuals 

and families for whom home ownership may not be possible using 

private sector financing without FHA backing. Typically, these 

groups include those who do not have the resources to make a 

down payment in the amount required by private financers and 

those with less sound credit history. In order to review if FHA is 

still primarily serving credit-worthy yet lower income individuals, 

the Committee directs the Department to report within 180 days 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the 

number of loans that FHA insured in the past two years, including 

the value of the home, the income-level of the recipient, the location of the home, and the average home price at the time in the 

area of the country. 

The Committee does not include authority for HUD to charge a 

fee to provide additional funds for FHA’s administrative costs as 

requested in the budget request. However, the Committee supports 

the goal of improving FHA’s system automation, risk management 

and quality control efforts and has included resources within the 

Department’s information technology funds for this purpose. 

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, 2016 .................................................................................................. $500,000,000,000 $23,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ............................................................................................... 500,000,000,000 23,000,000 

Committee recommendation ....................................................................................... 500,000,000,000 23,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Government National Mortgage Association [Ginnie Mae], 

through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees privately issued securities backed by pools of Government-guaranteed 

mortgages. Ginnie Mae is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United States within the Department. Its powers are 

prescribed generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as 

amended. Ginnie Mae is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to 

guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that are based on and backed by a trust, or pool, composed of 

mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the FHA, the Rural 

Housing Service, or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ginnie 

Mae’s guarantee of mortgage-backed securities is backed by the full 

faith and credit of the United States. This account also funds all 

salaries and benefits funding to support Ginnie Mae. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments 

on mortgage-backed securities of $500,000,000,000. This level is the 

same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

The bill allows Ginnie Mae to use $23,000,000 for salaries and ex-
127 

penses. This is equal to the fiscal year 2016 enacted level and the 

budget request. The Committee directs the Department to report to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 120 

days of enactment of this act on the retention rates for staff in mission critical positions within GNMA. This report should identify 

those positions, industry average retention rates where possible, 

and, if the report determines retention in mission critical positions 

is adversely affecting the ability of GNMA to carry out its oversight 

role, possible solutions to boost retention including but not limited 

to pay bands. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $85,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 1 ......................................................................... 185,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 90,000,000 

1 Includes $120,000,000 by transfer. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as 

amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development to undertake programs of research, evaluation, 

and reports relating to the Department’s mission and programs. 

These functions are carried out internally and through grants and 

contracts with industry, nonprofit research organizations, 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 $90,000,000 for 

research, technology, and community development activities in fiscal year 2017. This level is $5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 

2016 enacted level and $95,000,000 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 United States. The Committee strongly encourages the Department to continue funding local rent surveys of areas affected 

by changing economic conditions and natural disasters. 

Fair Market Rents [FMRs] are used across HUD rental assistance programs. However, in certain counties the current methodology does not accurately reflect the current housing market, and 

additional local area surveys are necessary. The Committee further 

notes that proposals such as Small Area Fair Market Rents do not 

fully address the undervaluing of Fair Market Rents in many areas 

where rents have risen quickly. The Committee recommends that 

HUD designate funding for additional local surveys for communities where the data used by HUD does not accurately reflect the 
128 

market. The Committee encourages the Department, to the extent 

practicable, to work with communities to use local rent survey data 

made available in the preceding year to inform the calculation of 

Fair Market Rents. The Committee strongly encourages HUD to 

expedite the process for consideration of FMRs and exception payment standards that are requested from PHAs. 

Of the activities proposed in the budget, the Committee recommends $41,500,000 for market surveys, $5,700,000 for research 

support and dissemination, $600,000 for data acquisition, 

$1,000,000 for housing finance studies, $1,000,000 for research 

partnerships, $200,000 for housing technology. In addition, the 

Committee includes up to $40,000,000 for Department-wide technical assistance and critical research beyond the core studies. Of 

this amount, at least $25,000,000 is for technical assistance [TA] 

across HUD programs. 

The Committee encourages the Department to consider providing 

technical assistance to distressed cities and communities through a 

network of non-profit or private sector organizations that have a 

proven track record of providing assistance to multiple cities across 

various disciplines including economic development, workforce development, fiscal efficiency, and promoting best practices and intercity assistance. 

Of the amount provided for critical research beyond the core 

studies, the recommendation includes: $3,000,000 for evaluation of 

the expansion of the Moving-to-Work demonstration; $1,350,000 for 

phase 3 of a pre-purchase counseling demonstration; $6,000,000 for 

continued evaluation of rent reform; $200,000 for multidisciplinary 

research teams; $300,000 for an expanded analysis of the family 

options study; and $3,000,000 for an evaluation of the housing 

choice voucher mobility demonstration. While the Committee recommendation includes funding for phase 3 of the pre-purchase 

counseling demonstration, the Committee will not fund future additions and directs the Department to seek alternative sources of 

funding for this demonstration should it wish to pursue additional 

research beyond fiscal year 2017. HUD shall include details on its 

allocation of these resources in its operating plan. 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $65,300,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 70,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 65,300,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding for 

both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the Fair 

Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP]. 

The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local 

agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as 

amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage services. The 

major objective of the program is to assure prompt and effective 
129 

processing of title VIII complaints with appropriate remedies for 

complaints by State and local fair housing agencies. 

The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by section 

561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, as 

amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair housing opportunities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $65,300,000 for 

the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity [OFHEO]. This 

amount is $4,700,000 less than the budget request and equal to the 

2016 enacted level. Of the amounts provided, $23,500,000 is for 

FHAP, $39,900,000 is for FHIP, and $300,000 is for the creation, 

promotion, and dissemination of translated materials that support 

the assistance of persons with limited English proficiency. The 

Committee also provides $1,600,000 for the National Fair Housing 

Training Academy, and encourages the Department to pursue ways 

to make the Academy self-sustaining. The Committee is disappointed in the lack of detail in the fiscal year 2017 congressional 

budget justification in comparison to previous years and directs the 

Department to provide specific details on any new initiatives in future justifications. 

Group Homes, Local Land Use, and the Fair Housing Act.—The 

Committee is aware that HUD is in the process of updating the 

1999 Joint Statement on Group Homes, Local Land Use, and the 

Fair Housing Act. The Committee stresses the importance of HUD 

coordinating with the Department of Justice to complete this process in a timely manner. The Committee recognizes the importance 

of clarifying the role of State or local government in defining zoning 

ordinances, licensing and registration requirements regarding 

group homes. 

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing [AFFH].—In 2016, HUD 

will require 22 CDBG grantees to submit the first fair housing assessments under the new AFFH rule. In fiscal year 2016, Congress 

expressed its support for implementation of AFFH by providing 

HUD with increased funding to hire additional staff and to provide 

technical assistance to grantees for compliance and implementation 

efforts associated with this rule. The Committee is concerned that 

communities conducting the assessment receive no certification 

from HUD that they have effectively assessed or met their fair 

housing obligations under the Fair Housing Act. HUD is directed 

to consider modifying its AFFH process to provide written approval 

of grantees’ assessments of fair housing, while ensuring there is no 

substantial delay in approving consolidated plans. HUD is developing modified tools and templates for PHAs and communities that 

choose to provide regional analysis and the Committee encourages 

the Department to further develop streamlined tools for small entitlement CDBG grantees. 

Disparate Impact.—The Supreme Court recently upheld the doctrine of disparate impact in Texas Department of Housing and 

Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 
130 

which serves as the basis of HUD’s ‘‘Implementation of the Fair 

Housing Act’s Discriminatory Effects Standard’’ rulemaking. A U.S. 

District Court has also ruled that HUD failed to adequately consider insurance industry concerns in its rule and remanded the 

rule to HUD for further consideration. The Committee expects 

HUD to take action expeditiously in response to the Court’s remand. 

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL AND HEALTHY HOMES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $110,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 110,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 135,000,000 

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 Initiative, 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 $135,000,000 for 

lead-based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2017. Of the amount provided, $20,000,000 is for the 

Healthy Homes Initiative and $55,000,000 is for the Lead Hazard 

Reduction Demonstration Program. This amount is $25,000,000 

more than the President’s budget request and the fiscal year 2016 

enacted level. This increased funding level will support lead-based 

paint hazard reductions in over 1,750 additional units, providing 

safer homes for over 6,200 low and very-low income families or individuals with children under the age of 6. 

Blood Lead Level Rule.—In fiscal year 2014, the Committee expressed concern regarding the exposure of children to lead-based 

paint hazards and noted that a heightened standard for blood lead 

levels had recently been adopted by the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention [CDC] in 2012. As a result of this new standard, 

the CDC now estimates that 535,000 American children under 6 

years of age are affected by lead poisoning. Exposure to lead can 

have severe, lasting consequences for children under the age of 6 

due their ongoing neurological development. The resulting harms 

can include reduced IQ, behavioral problems, and learning disabilities. HUD’s blood lead level standard, however, has not been updated since 1999, allowing for children’s blood lead levels to be 

three to four times higher than the CDC standard before requiring 

an environmental intervention. The Committee is extremely concerned that children are living in conditions in assisted housing 
131 

that have been scientifically-proven to result in lifelong neurological damage. The Committee directs HUD to finalize regulatory 

action to update its standard for requiring an environmental intervention and adopt the blood lead levels currently advised by the 

CDC within 90 days after the enactment of this act. 

HUD estimates that this regulatory action will require an additional 6,100 environmental interventions in public and HUD-assisted housing units. This change could place additional cost burdens on public housing agencies, which are already unable to meet 

their deferred capital needs and do not have their administrative 

funding needs met either. The Committee has provided an additional $25,000,000 in the Public Housing Capital Fund account to 

allow PHAs to meet this new regulatory requirement. 

Grantee Coordination.—Funds received by States and local governments under the Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration and 

the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant programs may be utilized to evaluate and address lead-based paint hazards in Section 

8 voucher units. The Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy 

Homes currently gives preference to grantees that work with public 

housing agencies to address lead-based paint hazards in Section 8 

voucher units. The Committee commends HUD for emphasizing the 

need to address lead-based paint hazards in Section 8 voucher 

units when awarding these grants and urges HUD to continue to 

address these needs in HUD-assisted housing stock in the private 

market. 

Oversight and Enforcement of Lead-Based Paint Regulations.— The Committee is concerned that HUD lacks an appropriate level 

of oversight and enforcement of its lead-based paint regulations. 

Respective program offices within HUD are responsible for ensuring that grantees are in compliance with lead-based paint regulations, while the Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes 

enforces lead-based paint regulations and provides technical assistance to HUD offices and grantees. The Committee directs GAO to 

review HUD’s policies, procedures, and processes for oversight to 

ensure that public housing agencies comply with lead-based paint 

regulations within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 

act. The report shall: (1) analyze existing Federal programs for addressing lead-based paint hazards in dwellings receiving Federal 

housing assistance; (2) determine whether gaps exist in compliance 

and enforcement of HUD’s lead-based paint regulations; (3) identify 

existing partnerships with public housing agencies (including State 

housing finance agencies) and public health agencies in addressing 

lead-based paint hazards and determine whether those partnerships can be replicated and enhanced with better data collection, 

analysis, and dissemination among stakeholders; and (4) examine 

the appropriateness and efficacy of existing HUD protocols on reducing or abating lead-based paint hazards and whether they are 

aligned with accepted environmental health practices to ensure the 

best and appropriate health outcomes and reduce further exposure. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $250,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 286,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 273,000,000 
132 

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 $273,000,000 for 

the Information Technology Fund for fiscal year 2017, which is 

$13,000,000 less than the budget request and $23,000,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

The Committee has been very supportive of HUD’s efforts to 

modernize its IT systems, which are critical to effectively manage 

its programs. For years, HUD has been hampered by outdated IT 

systems that are not integrated, which limit its ability to 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. 

Next Generation Management System [NGMS].—The Committee 

recommendation includes $10,000,000 for development, modernization, and enhancement activities to deploy a replacement for the 

Voucher Management System and the Public Housing Information 

Center systems. The public housing and housing choice voucher 

programs serve more than 3 million households and accounts for 

more than $24,000,000,000 in annual expenditures. NGMS is part 

of a systematic approach to improve existing business processes in 

the areas of program and financial management, and budget execution for PIH’s housing choice voucher and public housing programs. 

The system enhancements that result from the initiative will be 

more robust, comprehensive, secure, and reliable. Although the 

tools can be effective, they are limited in their ability to be enterprise IT solutions. This initiative will automate business processes 

to improve the way HUD collects, analyzes and uses information 

and will: reduce PHA reporting burdens; provide improved support 

for PHA cash disbursements based on payee-level data; establish 

greater transparency to external stakeholders, including the OIG; 

and will end PIH’s reliance on an annual $1,300,000 contract with 

a third-party vendor to process more than 7,000 applications, with 

continual cost increases. The Department is directed to submit a 

spend plan for approval for these funds to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations prior to obligating more than 10 

percent of these funds. 

Federal Housing Administration [FHA] Modernization.—The 

Committee recommendation includes $13,000,000 for development, 

modernization, and enhancement activities of the IT systems of the 

FHA. The IT systems currently supporting critical FHA business 

processes consist of complex, aging IT systems with COBOL-based 

mainframe applications. These legacy systems were assembled as 

business needs surfaced over the last 30 years, without the benefit 
133 

of an architectural plan that could provide the adaptability needed 

to meet regulatory and industry standards over time. Today, FHA 

operations require data to move between numerous touch points 

through hundreds of interfaces, resulting in an environment that 

has become increasingly complex, costly, and difficult to maintain. 

The Committee recommendation supports the continued planning, 

design, and execution for requirements focused on Counterparty 

Management, Portfolio Analysis, Borrower/Collateral Risk Management/Fraud Monitoring and Infrastructure/Application Modernization. This investment will replace obsolete applications, reduce infrastructure costs, reduce fragmentation of legacy systems, and leverage shared data components in support of multiple housing programs. The Department is directed to submit a spend plan for approval for these funds to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to obligating more than 10 percent of these 

funds. 

Information Technology Consolidation and Streamlining.—The 

Committee recognizes that development of more sophisticated IT 

systems may come with higher costs associated with the additional 

capabilities. At the same time, HUD must also achieve savings by 

eliminating legacy systems and old servers. The Committee continues to direct HUD to be more diligent in identifying and achieving savings by retiring old systems and shutting off redundant and 

inefficient servers. In addition, the Committee urges HUD to continue to look for savings when it renews contracts to reduce the ongoing costs of operating and maintaining its IT systems. The Committee notes that the Department has yet to submit plans articulating how the Department is implementing GAO’s IT-related recommendations, and identifying savings it will achieve by retiring 

legacy systems and shutting off old servers. The Committee directs 

the Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Information Officer to 

ensure reports are submitted in a timely manner and include all 

required information. 

Unsanctioned Information Technology Development.—The Committee remains concerned about the development of IT systems outside of the Information Technology Fund. While the Committee understands that limited resources may prompt HUD offices to develop solutions with their own resources, the Committee expects 

that, at a minimum, OCIO will monitor and oversee the development of any such solutions. The Committee directs the OCIO to 

monitor the development of new system solutions by every office in 

HUD to make sure they conform to HUD’s enterprise architecture, 

and will be compatible with systems under development. 

GAO Oversight.—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 and execution of plans and 

projects. The Committee emphasizes the importance of pursuing a 

strategic approach as HUD continues to improve its IT management. To this end, in order to monitor the Department’s progress, 

the Committee instructed GAO in 2012 to conduct several reviews. 

In 2013, GAO completed a review of the Department’s IT project 

management practices. The Committee reaffirms its direction to 

GAO to also evaluate HUD’s institutionalization of governance and 
134 

cost estimating practices. In particular, the Committee remains interested in any cost savings or operational efficiencies that have resulted (or may result) from the Department’s improvement efforts. 

The Committee appreciates the work that GAO has done in this 

area and believes it has benefited the Committee and the Department. The Committee encourages HUD to take advantage of GAO 

expertise as it makes further improvements to its IT structure and 

governance. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $126,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 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 Inspector General 

[OIG]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $129,000,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General. The amount of funding is equal to 

the budget request and $3,000,000 above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The Committee directs the Inspector General to report 

to the House and Senate Committees within 120 days of enactment 

of this act on the management and oversight, including related information technology systems, of the Section 184 Loan Guarantee 

program. 

Audit Reports.—The Committee requests that the Inspector General 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 which recommends significant budgetary savings. 

First-in First-out Methods.—The Committee is aware that the Inspector General has been working with the Department to resolve 

concerns with the use of cumulative and first-in first-out [FIFO] 

methods to disburse and commit HOME funds in the Integrated 

Disbursement and Information System. The Committee is concerned that similar issues may be present in other programs. To 

address these concerns, the Committee directs the Inspector General to submit a report on which other, if any, programs administered by the Department use similar methods for the commitment, 

obligation and disbursement of funds to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment of this 

act. 

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. 
135 

Sec. 202. This section clarifies a limitation on the use of funds 

under the Fair Housing Act. 

Sec. 203. This section clarifies the allocation of HOPWA funding 

for fiscal year 2006 and beyond. 

Sec. 204. This section requires HUD to award funds on a competitive basis unless otherwise provided. 

Sec. 205. This section allows funds to be used to reimburse GSEs 

and other Federal entities for various administrative expenses. 

Sec. 206. This section limits HUD’s 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 that the administration’s budget 

and the Department’s budget justifications for fiscal year 2018 be 

submitted in the identical account and sub-account structure provided in this Act. 

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 2017. 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 Indian Housing Block Grant program. 

Sec. 215. This section eliminates a cap on Home Equity Conversion Mortgages for fiscal year 2017. 

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 section 108 loan 

guaranteed program for nonentitlement communities. 

Sec. 218. This section allows PHAs with less than 400 units to 

be exempt from management requirements in the operating fund 

rule. 

Sec. 219. This section restricts the Secretary from imposing any 

requirement or guideline relating to asset management that restricts or limits the use of capital funds for central office costs, up 

to the limit established in QWHRA. 

Sec. 220. This section requires that no employee of the Department shall be designated as an allotment holder unless the CFO 

determines that such employee has received certain training. 

Sec. 221. The section requires the Secretary to publish all notices 

of funding availability that are competitively awarded on the Internet. 
136 

Sec. 222. This section limits attorney fees and requires the Department to submit a spend plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Sec. 223. This section allows the Secretary to transfer up to 10 

percent of funds or $4,000,000, whichever is less, appropriated 

under the headings ‘‘Administrative Support Offices’’ or ‘‘Program 

Office Salaries and Expenses’’ to any other office funded under 

such headings. 

Sec. 224. This section allows the Disaster Housing Assistance 

Programs to be considered HUD programs for the purpose of income verification and matching. 

Sec. 225. This section requires HUD to take certain actions 

against owners receiving rental subsidies that do not maintain safe 

properties. 

Sec. 226. This section places limits on PHA compensation. 

Sec. 227. This section extends the HOPE VI program until September 30, 2017. 

Sec. 228. This section requires the Secretary to provide the Committee with advance notification before discretionary awards are 

made. 

Sec. 229. This section prohibits funds to be used to require or enforce the Physical Needs Assessment. 

Sec. 230. This section prohibits funds being used to implement 

the Homeowners Armed With Knowledge program. 

Sec. 231. This section prohibits funds for HUD financing of mortgages for properties that have been subject to eminent domain. 

Sec. 232. This section prohibits funds from being used to terminate the status of a unit of local government as a metropolitan city, 

as defined under section 102 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, with respect to grants under section 106 of 

such act. 

Sec. 233. This section allows funding for research, evaluation, 

and statistical purposes that is unexpended at the time of completion of the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement to be reobligated for additional research. 

Sec. 234. This section prohibits funds to be used for financial 

awards for employees subject to administrative discipline. 

Sec. 235. This section authorizes the Secretary on a limited basis 

to use funds available under the ‘‘Homeless Assistance Grants’’ 

heading to participate in the multiagency Performance Partnership 

Pilots program. 

Sec. 236. This section allows program income to be used as an 

eligible match for 2015, 2016 and 2017 Continuum of Care funds. 

Sec. 237. This section permits HUD to consolidate funds used to 

manage disaster recovery grants. 

Sec. 238. This section modifies the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning 

Prevention Act to remove the ‘‘zero-bedroom dwellings’’ exclusion 

and amends the Residential Lead-Based Paint Reduction Act to include ‘‘zero bedroom dwellings.’’ 

Sec. 239. This section allows PHAs to establish replacement reserves to address capital needs. 

Sec. 240. This section makes changes to the family unification 

program. 
137 

Sec. 241. This section incentivizes measures to reduce energy and 

water consumption in public housing. 

Sec. 242. This section repeals section 211 of the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2008. 

Sec. 243. This section allows HUD to provide mobility counseling 

to housing choice voucher participants. 

Sec. 244. This section modifies the Rental Assistance Demonstration included in Public Law 112–55. 

Sec. 245. This section permits HUD to implement section 78001 

of title LXXVIII of Public Law 114–94 through notice while undertaking the rulemaking process. 

Sec. 246. This section permits HUD to renew a grant originally 

awarded as part of Public Law 110–252. 

Sec. 247. This section permits HUD to provide 1 year transition 

grants under the continuum of care program. 
(138) 

TITLE III 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

ACCESS BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $8,023,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 8,190,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,190,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Access Board (formerly known as the Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance Board) was established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board is responsible for developing guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Architectural Barriers Act, and the Telecommunications Act. These guidelines ensure that buildings and facilities, 

transportation vehicles, and telecommunications equipment covered 

by these laws are readily accessible to and usable by people with 

disabilities. The Board is also responsible for developing standards 

under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act for accessible electronic 

and information technology used by Federal agencies, and for medical diagnostic equipment under section 510 of the Rehabilitation 

Act. The Access Board also enforces the Architectural Barriers Act, 

ensuring accessibility to a wide range of Federal agencies, including national parks, post offices, social security offices, and prisons. 

In addition, the Board provides training and technical assistance 

on the guidelines and standards it develops to Government agencies, public and private organizations, individuals and businesses 

on the removal of accessibility barriers. 

In 2002, the Access Board was given additional responsibilities 

under the Help America Vote Act. The Board serves on the Board 

of Advisors and the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, 

which helps the Election Assistance Commission develop voluntary 

guidelines and guidance for voting systems, including accessibility 

for people with disabilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $8,190,000 for the operations of the 

Access Board. This level of funding is $167,000 more than the 2016 

enacted level and equal to the President’s fiscal year 2017 request. 
139 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $25,660,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 27,490,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 27,490,000 

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 $27,490,000 for the salaries and expenses of the FMC for fiscal year 2017. This amount is equal to the 

President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request and $1,830,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

The Committee commends FMC’s efforts to promote access to foreign markets for American exports, and efficient supply chains for 

the importation of goods for domestic production and consumption. 

These pursuits 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, 2016 ............................................................................. $24,499,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 23,274,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 23,274,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Inspector General for Amtrak was created by the 

Inspector General Act Amendment of 1988. The act recognized Amtrak as a ‘‘designated Federal entity’’ and required the railroad to 

establish an independent and objective unit to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of Amtrak; recommend policies designed to promote econ-
140 

omy, 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 $23,274,000 for the Amtrak Office of 

Inspector General [OIG]. This funding level is equal to the budget 

request and $1,225,000 less than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

The Committee retains language that requires the Amtrak OIG to 

submit a budget request in similar format and substance to those 

submitted by other executive agencies in the Federal Government. 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $105,170,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 106,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 106,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Initially established along with the Department of Transportation, the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent Federal 

agency. The Board is charged by Congress with investigating every 

civil aviation accident in the United States as well as significant 

accidents in the other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, 

marine, and pipeline—and issuing safety recommendations aimed 

at preventing future accidents. Although it has always operated 

independently, NTSB relied on DOT for funding and administrative support until the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Public 

Law 93–633) severed all ties between the two organizations starting in 1975. 

In addition to its investigatory duties, NTSB is responsible for 

maintaining the Government’s database of civil aviation accidents 

and also conducts special studies of transportation safety issues of 

national significance. Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international treaties, NTSB supplies investigators to serve 

as U.S. accredited representatives for aviation accidents overseas 

involving U.S.-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or major 

components of U.S. manufacture. NTSB also serves as the ‘‘court 

of appeals’’ for any airman, mechanic, or mariner whenever certificate action is taken by the Federal Aviation Administration or the 

U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are assessed by FAA. 

Alaska Aircrash Investigators.—In September 2015, the National 

Transportation Safety Board entered into an agreement with Lucky 

8 Television, LLC under which the NTSB agreed to assist in the 

production of a ‘‘documentary style’’ reality show which shadows 

NTSB investigators conducting accident and incident investigations 

in Alaska. The producers were granted unparalleled access to current and ongoing investigations, including access to information 

that had not been available to the public or the families of victims. 
141 

The resultant series, a six episode production, entitled Alaska 

Aircrash Investigations began airing on the Smithsonian Channel 

on March 13, 2016. The television series has drawn criticism from 

aviation safety professionals for its lack of balance; spotlighting 

aviation tragedies using video simulations of aircraft striking 

mountains without any treatment of the concerted efforts of aviation safety professionals to prevent accidents and incidents and 

mitigate risks. It has drawn criticism from the families of victims, 

one of whom contends that the publicity material released by the 

producers disclosed information which had not yet been revealed to 

the family. It has drawn criticism from Alaska air carriers who 

question why the NTSB agreed to participate in a six episode reality show focused on a single State when it could have insisted 

that the producers shadow NTSB investigators across the country. 

Moreover, the NTSB admits that the first episode of the program 

overstated the aircraft accident rate in Alaska during the summer 

months by 100 percent. On March 8, 2016, a member of the Committee posed a series of questions to the NTSB regarding the participation of the project and whether there was a use of appropriated funds to support the project. The NTSB has failed to respond to this inquiry. The Committee, therefore, directs the NTSB 

to respond to these questions expeditiously. The Committee does 

not question the important and valuable investigative work that 

the NTSB performs but questions whether its participation in reality shows, even those which are purported to be in the ‘‘documentary style’’ advances its mission to advance transportation safety 

and protect the interests of the families of accident victims. Moreover, the Committee is concerned that the NTSB agreed to participate in a six episode reality show focused on the NTSB’s work in 

a single state to the exclusion of all others; a decision which could 

convey a false impression to viewers that air transportation in that 

State is inherently dangerous. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $106,000,000 for the National 

Transportation Safety Board, which is equal to the budget request 

and $830,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The 

Committee has also continued to include language that allows 

NTSB to make payments on its lease for the NTSB training facility 

with funding provided in the bill. 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $175,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 140,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 135,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by the 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public Law 

95–557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation now operates under the trade name, ‘‘NeighborWorks Amer-
142 

ica.’’ NeighborWorks America helps local communities establish efficient and effective partnerships between residents and representatives of the public and private sectors. These partnership-based 

organizations are independent, tax-exempt, nonprofit entities and 

are frequently known as Neighborhood Housing Services or mutual 

housing associations. 

Collectively, these organizations are known as the 

NeighborWorks network. Nationally, 235 NeighborWorks organizations serve nearly 3,000 urban, suburban, and rural communities 

in 49 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $135,000,000 for 

NeighborWorks for fiscal year 2017. This amount is $5,000,000 

below the budget request and $40,000,000 less than the fiscal year 

2016 enacted level. The Committee has included funding solely to 

support NeighborWorks core programs, and continues to support 

the set-aside of $5,000,000 for the multifamily rental housing initiative, which has been successful in developing innovative approaches to producing mixed-income affordable housing throughout 

the Nation. 

National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program (NFMC).— 

The Committee has not included any funding for this program. The 

Committee has been clear that NFMC, which was initially provided 

‘‘one-time funding’’ in fiscal year 2008, was not intended to be a 

permanent program. National foreclosure rates continue to lower 

and have now dropped below 2007 levels. By not providing additional funding for NFMC, NeighborWorks will be able to utilize the 

$4,000,000 provided in fiscal year 2015 to begin to wind-down and 

close out operations. 

Mortgage Rescue Scams.—Since 2009, NeighborWorks has been 

working to raise awareness of mortgage rescue scams and help vulnerable homeowners access legitimate forms of assistance. This 

campaign targets at-risk communities and populations through 

public service announcements, public media, and the Internet. 

NeighborWorks is working with other partners, such as the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission to stop rescue 

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. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation Crediting offsetting 

collections 

Appropriations, 2016 ....................................................................................................... $32,375,000 $1,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ................................................................................................... 42,401,000 1,250,000 

Committee recommendation ........................................................................................... 37,000,000 1,250,000 
143 

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 five-member, 

bipartisan, decisionally independent adjudicatory body and is responsible for the regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and 

certain nonlicensing regulations of motor carriers and water carriers. 

STB’s rail oversight activities include rate reasonableness, car 

service and interchange, mergers, line acquisitions, line constructions, and abandonments. STB’s jurisdiction also includes certain 

oversight of the intercity bus industry, pipeline carriers, intercity 

passenger train service, rate regulation involving noncontiguous 

domestic water transportation, household goods carriers, and collectively determined motor carrier rates. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $37,000,000. 

This funding level is $5,401,000 below the budget request and 

$4,625,000 more than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. Included 

in the recommendation is $1,250,000 in fees, which will offset the 

appropriated funding. The Committee recommendation includes 

$2,046,000 to make long overdue improvements to the agency’s information technology system that are necessary to inform the public of Board decisions and activities that impact the movement of 

people and goods across the country. 

The STB Reauthorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114–110, increased the number of Board Members from three to five, and 

made the STB an independent agency separate from the Department of Transportation. The recommendation provides funding to 

support the salaries and expenses of the new Board Members and 

their associated staff and to make accommodations in the STB office space. 

On-Time Performance and Preference.—The Committee is concerned by the STB’s notice of proposed rulemaking regarding passenger rail on-time performance [OTP] and policy statement regarding passenger rail preference over freight transportation. Both 

of these proposals break from legislative intent, as most passengers 

do not ride intercity trains from endpoint to endpoint and Federal 

law and industry practice have for decades given intercity passenger trains preference over freight transportation in using a rail 

line, junction, or crossing. The Committee urges the STB to measure OTP at all intermediate stations along a route, and not solely 

endpoint stations recognizing that some schedules may need adjustment to reflect the all station performance metric. 

UNITED STATES INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $3,530,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 3,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,600,000 
144 

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 $3,600,000 for 

the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [USICH]. 

This amount is equal to the budget request and $70,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The bill includes language to 

amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act and extend 

USICH’s sunset date until October 1, 2018, in addition to adjusting 

the Executive Director’s salary from level V to level IV. 

USICH supports Federal collaboration and implementation of the 

Federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. The Council’s work on such issues as establishing common definitions of 

homelessness across programs and consolidating Federal data is 

helping to breakdown silos and increase Federal collaboration. Its 

work was recognized by GAO in its February 2012 report on ways 

to reduce duplication, overlap, and fragmentation in the Federal 

Government. The Committee is aware that individuals who are 

homeless or in unstable housing situations are often living with 

multiple chronic conditions. The link between homelessness and 

long-term physical and behavioral health conditions is well documented. The Committee has recognized the cost-savings that can 

be achieved by using evidence-based practices, and has been supportive of such efforts, including through the HUD–VASH program 

and other permanent supportive housing through HUD’s homeless 

assistance grants program. However, the Committee believes that 

more can be done to emphasize evidence-based practices in serving 

other populations. The Committee directs the USICH to continue 

to work to improve coordination between HUD, HHS and other 

Federal agencies, and to help communities use the Homeless Management Information System and other data to target affordable 

housing and homeless resources to high-need, high-cost families 

and individuals. The Committee further encourages HUD to work 

with HHS and other Federal agencies to identify homeless individuals who have high utilization rates for emergency and other public 

services, and share strategies for combining affordable housing 

with health and social support services to improve both housing 

and health outcomes for these individuals. 

Performance Metrics and Cross-Agency Coordination.—USICH 

leads the coordination of the Federal response to ending homeless-
145 

ness among 19 Federal agencies, as well as State, local, nonprofit 

and philanthropic organizations. However, the Committee is concerned that other stakeholders do not fully appreciate the value of 

the important work that agency has been able to accomplish over 

time due to the Council’s lack of clear output and outcome based 

performance metrics. The Committee directs the agency to undertake the development of measurable performance goals and metrics 

that define how USICH accomplishes its mission for inclusion in its 

fiscal year 2018 Congressional budget justification. 

The Committee also directs USICH to develop performance 

metrics to measure the progress that USICH and its partners have 

made to address and end homelessness in the 2017 performance 

and accountability report, as well as provide an update on efforts 

to improve cross-agency collaboration and coordination on integrating child welfare systems with housing and services provided 

through HUD and the Department of Health and Human Services 

in response to youth homelessness; the coordination between continuums of care and the Department of Labor employment programs, the Department of Education and HUD, and the Department of Agriculture with other Federal agencies. 

The Committee believes these targeted, data-driven analyses will 

better educate Congress and the public at-large on the clear outcomes of USICH’s work to promote cost-effective policies, and evidence-based practices in urban and rural communities alike. The 

Committee further directs the agency to report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations within 120 days of enactment of this act on the status of these efforts. 

Veterans Homelessness.—The Committee is concerned that some 

servicemembers, upon being discharged, may not fully be aware of 

their housing and supportive service options as veterans, and as a 

result, are vulnerable to homelessness. The Committee directs 

USICH to work with the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to evaluate and report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations within 120 days of enactment of this act on how the veteran transition process can be improved to better ensure that a servicemember’s risk of homelessness upon being discharged is minimized to the extent possible, if 

not eliminated. 

Homeless Youth.—One of the goals of the Federal Strategic Plan 

is to prevent and end homelessness among youth by 2020. The plan 

identifies four core targeted outcomes for youth experiencing homelessness—stable housing, permanent connections, education and 

employment, and social/emotional well-being. These outcomes appropriately identify the multiple needs of youth experiencing homelessness and underscore the importance of comprehensive solutions. To be successful, it is critical to coordinate Federal services 

and programs at the local, regional, and State levels to ensure 

these outcomes are met. As such, the Committee recognizes that it 

can be difficult for local communities, as well as housing and service providers, to navigate different Federal program laws and regulatory requirements. USICH is directed to work with its Federal 

member agencies to ensure that all homeless-related Federal grant 

funding solicitations are coordinated and made publically available, 

a user-friendly document that helps local communities identify and 
146 

understand the scope of all Federal programs for which homeless 

youth are eligible. This document shall include detailed descriptions of eligibility criteria, application instructions, and application 

deadlines and be updated as necessary. 
(147) 

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 services through 

procurement contracts where such expenditures are a matter of 

public record and available for public inspection. 

Section 404 prohibits the use of funds for employee training unless such training bears directly upon the performance of official 

duties. 

Section 405 authorizes the reprogramming of funds within a 

budget account and specifies the reprogramming procedures for 

agencies funded by this act. The Committee rejects the administration’s request to transfer budget authority between accounts. 

Section 406 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances may 

remain available for certain purposes. 

Section 407 prohibits the use of funds for eminent domain unless 

such taking is employed for public use. 

Section 408 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred without 

express authority. 

Section 409 protects employment rights of Federal employees 

who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the Armed 

Forces. 

Section 410 prohibits the use of funds for activities not in compliance with the Buy American Act. 

Section 411 prohibits funding for any person or entity convicted 

of violating the Buy American Act. 

Section 412 prohibits funds for first-class airline accommodation 

in contravention of section 301–10.122 and 301–10.123 of title 41 

CFR. 

Section 413 prohibits funds from being used for the approval of 

a new foreign air carrier permit or exemption application if that 

approval would contravene United States law or article 17 bis of 

the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-Norway Air Transport Agreement and specifies that nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict, or preclude 

the Secretary of DOT from granting a permit or exemption where 

such authorization is consistent with the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-Norway 

Air Transport Treaty and the U.S. law. 

Section 414 restricts the number of employees that agencies 

funded in this act may send to international conferences. 

Section 415 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. 
148 

Section 416 prohibits funds to agencies unless they are in compliance with the Presidential Memorandum—Federal Fleet Performance, dated May 24, 2011. 

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 2017: 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Infrastructure Investments 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Maritime Administration 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office 

of Pipeline Safety 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Rental Assistance Programs 

Indian Housing Block Grants 

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund 

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant 

Housing Opportunity for Persons with AIDS 

Community Development Fund 

Community Development Loan Guarantee 

Home Investment Partnerships Program 

Choice Neighborhoods Initiatives 

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program 

Homeless Assistance 

Housing for the Elderly 

Housing for Persons with Disabilities 

FHA General and Special Risk Program Account: 

GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program Account: 

Policy Development and Research 

Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Program 

Lead Hazard Reduction Program 

Salaries and Expenses 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES

Access Board 

National Transportation Safety Board 
149 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on April 21, 2016, the 

Committee ordered favorably reported a bill (S. 2844) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing 

and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, provided, that 

the bill be subject to amendment and that the bill be consistent 

with its budget allocation, by a recorded vote of 30–0, a quorum 

being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Cochran 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Collins 

Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Graham 

Mr. Kirk 

Mr. Blunt 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Hoeven 

Mr. Boozman 

Mrs. Capito 

Mr. Cassidy 

Mr. Lankford 

Mr. Daines 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Leahy 

Mrs. Murray 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Reed 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Udall 

Mrs. Shaheen 

Mr. Merkley 

Mr. Coons 

Mr. Schatz 

Ms. Baldwin 

Mr. Murphy 

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 
150 

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 15—COMMERCE AND TRADE 

CHAPTER 53—TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL

SUBCHAPTER IV—LEAD EXPOSURE REDUCTION

§ 2681. Definitions 

(1) Abatement 

* * * * * * * 

(17) Target housing 

The term ‘‘target housing’’ means any housing constructed 

prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities or any 0-bedroom dwelling (unless any child who is less 

than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such øhousing for the elderly or persons with disabilities) or any 0-bedroom 

dwelling¿ housing). In the case of jurisdictions which banned the 

sale or use of lead-based paint prior to 1978, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, at the Secretary’s discretion, may designate an earlier date. 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 8—LOW-INCOME HOUSING

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROGRAM AND ASSISTED HOUSING

§ 1437f. Low-income housing assistance 

(a) Authorization for assistance payments 

* * * * * * * 

(x) Family unification 

(1) Increase in budget authority 

* * * * * * * 

(2) Use of funds 

The amounts made available under this subsection shall be 

used only in connection with tenant-based assistance under this 

section on behalf of (A) any family (i) who is otherwise eligible for 

such assistance, and (ii) who the public child welfare agency for the 

jurisdiction has certified is a family for whom the lack of adequate 

housing is a primary factor in the imminent placement of the family’s child or children in out-of-home care or the delayed discharge 

of a child or children to the family from out-of-home care and ø(B) 

for a period not to exceed 18 months, otherwise eligible youths who 

have attained at least 18 years of age and not more than 21 years 

of age and who have left foster care at age 16 or older¿ (B)(i) for 
151 

a period not to exceed 36 months, otherwise eligible youths who 

have attained at least 18 years of age and not more than 24 years 

of age and who, at age 16 or older, have left or will leave foster care 

within 90 days, in accordance with a transition plan described in 

section 475(5)(H) of the Social Security Act, and is homeless or is 

at risk of becoming homeless, or (ii) except that an applicant may 

extend the 36-month period, if the applicant enrolls an eligible 

youth in a program authorized under section 23, in accordance with 

the length of the contract of participation for that eligible youth 

under section 23(c)(3). 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1437g. Public housing Capital and Operating Funds 

(a) Merger into Capital Fund 

* * * * * * * 

(g) Limitations on use of funds 

ø(1) Flexibility for Capital Fund amounts 

Of¿ 

(1) FLEXIBILITY IN USE OF FUNDS.— 

(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. 

(B) FLEXIBILITY FOR OPERATING FUND AMOUNTS.—Of 

any amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2017 or any fiscal 

year thereafter that are allocated for fiscal year 2017 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 under section 5A 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 (n). 

* * * * * * * 
152 

(m) Treatment of public housing 

(1) [Repealed. Pub. L. 108–7, div. K, title II, §212(a), Feb. 20, 

2003, 117 Stat. 503]. 

* * * * * * * 

(4) Effective date 

This subsection shall apply to fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal 

year thereafter. 

(n) ESTABLISHMENT OF REPLACEMENT RESERVES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Public housing agencies shall be permitted to establish a replacement reserve to fund any of the capital activities listed in subsection (d)(1). 

(2) SOURCE AND AMOUNT OF FUNDS FOR REPLACEMENT RE- SERVE.—At any time, a public housing agency may deposit 

funds from such agency’s Capital Fund into a replacement reserve, subject to the following: 

(A) At the discretion of the Secretary, public housing 

agencies may transfer and hold in a replacement reserve 

funds originating from additional sources. 

(B) No minimum transfer of funds to a replacement reserve shall be required. 

(C) At any time, a public housing agency 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 this section, 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 this 

section or other factors. 

(3) TRANSFER OF OPERATING FUNDS.—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 subsection (d)(1) and contained 

in its Capital Fund 5-Year Action Plan. 

(5) MANAGEMENT AND REPORT.—The Secretary shall establish appropriate accounting and reporting requirements to ensure that public housing agencies are spending funds on eligible 

projects and that funds in the replacement reserve are connected 

to capital needs. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1437v. Demolition, site revitalization, replacement housing, 

and tenant-based assistance grants for projects 

(a) Purposes 

* * * * * * * 
153 

(m) Funding 

(1) Authorization of appropriations 

There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under this 

section $574,000,000 for øfiscal year 2016.¿ fiscal year 2017. 

* * * * * * * 

(o) Sunset 

No assistance may be provided under this section after øSeptember 30, 2016.¿ September 30, 2017. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 63—LEAD-BASED PAINT POISONING PREVENTION

SUBCHAPTER III—FEDERAL DEMONSTRATION AND RESEARCH

PROGRAM: FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

§ 4822. Requirements for housing receiving Federal assistance 

(a) General requirements 

* * * * * * * 

(e) Exceptions 

The provisions of this section shall not apply to— 

(1) housing for the elderly or øhandicapped¿ persons with disabilities, or any 0-bedroom dwelling, except for any dwelling in 

such housing in which any child who is øless than 7 years of age¿ 

under age 6 resides or is expected to reside; or 

(2) any project for which an application for insurance is submitted under section 1715v, 1715w, 1715z–6, or 1715z–7 of title 

12ø; or¿. 

ø(3) any 0-bedroom dwelling.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 63A—RESIDENTIAL LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD

REDUCTION

§ 4851b. Definitions 

For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall 

apply: 

(1) Abatement 

* * * * * * * 

(27) Target housing 

The term ‘‘target housing’’ means any housing constructed 

prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities or any 0-bedroom dwelling (unless any child who is less 

than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such øhousing for the elderly or persons with disabilities) or any 0-bedroom 

dwelling¿ housing). In the case of jurisdictions which banned the 

sale or use of lead-based paint prior to 1978, the Secretary, at the 

Secretary’s discretion, may designate an earlier date. 

* * * * * * * 
154 

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. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 11319. Termination 

The Council shall cease to exist, and the requirements of this 

subchapter shall terminate, on øOctober 1, 2017¿ October 1, 2018 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER IV—HOUSING ASSISTANCE

PART C—CONTINUUM OF CARE PROGRAM

§ 11386b. Allocation of amounts and incentives for specific 

eligible activities 

(a) Minimum allocation for permanent housing for 

homeless individuals and families with disabilities 

* * * * * * * 

(e) Incentives for successful implementation of proven 

strategies 

If any geographic area demonstrates that it has fully implemented any of the activities described in subsection (d) for all 

homeless individuals and families or for all members of subpopulations for whom such activities are targeted, that geographic area 

shall receive the bonus or incentive provided under subsection (d), 

but may use such bonus or incentive for any eligible activity under 

either section 11383 of this title or paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 

11374(a) of this title for homeless people generally or for the relevant subpopulation. 

(f) TRANSITION FOR REALLOCATED GRANT.— 

(1) From amounts under this subtitle made available to 

carry out subtitle B and this subtitle, the Secretary may award 

one-year transition grants to recipients to transition from one 

Continuum of Care program component to another. 

(2) In order to be eligible to receive a transition grant, the 

project must have the consent of the Continuum of Care, and 

meet standards determined by the Secretary. 
155 

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION 

SUBTITLE III—GENERAL AND INTERMODAL PROGRAMS 

CHAPTER 53—PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

§ 5303. Metropolitan transportation planning 

(a) POLICY.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(r) BI-STATE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION.— 

(1) DEFINITION OF BI-STATE MPO REGION.—* * * 

(2) TREATMENT.—* * * 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) an urbanized area, which is comprised of a population of 145,000 and 25 square miles of land area in the 

State of California and a population of 65,000 and 12 

square miles of land area in the State of Nevada. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 5307. Urbanized area formula grants 

(a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.— 

(1) GRANTS.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(2) SPECIAL RULE.—The Secretary may make grants 

under this section to finance the operating cost of equipment 

and facilities for use in public transportation, excluding rail 

fixed guideway, in an urbanized area with a population of not 

fewer than 200,000 individuals, as determined by the Bureau 

of the Census— 

ø(A) for public transportation systems that operate 75 

or fewer buses in fixed route service or demand response 

service, excluding ADA complementary paratransit service, 

during peak service hours, in an amount not to exceed 75 

percent of the share of the apportionment which is attributable to such systems within the urbanized area, as 

measured by vehicle revenue hours; and 

ø(B) for public transportation systems that operate a 

minimum of 76 buses and a maximum of 100 buses in 

fixed route service or demand response service, excluding 

ADA complementary paratransit service, during peak service hours, in an amount not to exceed 50 percent of the 

share of the apportionment which is attributable to such 

systems within the urbanized area, as measured by vehicle 

revenue hours. 

ø(3) EXCEPTION TO THE SPECIAL RULE.—Notwithstanding 

paragraph (2), if a public transportation system described in 

such paragraph executes a written agreement with 1 or more 

other public transportation systems within the urbanized area 

to allocate funds for the purposes described in the paragraph 

by a method other than by measuring vehicle revenue hours, 
156 

each public transportation system that is a party to the written 

agreement may follow the terms of the written agreement 

without regard to measured vehicle revenue hours referred to 

in the paragraph.¿ 

(2) SPECIAL RULE.—The Secretary may make grants under 

this section to finance the operating cost of equipment and facilities for use in public transportation, excluding rail fixed 

guideway, in an urbanized area with a population of not fewer 

than 200,000 individuals, as determined by the Bureau of the 

Census— 

(A) for public transportation systems that— 

(i) operate 75 or fewer buses in fixed route service 

or demand response service, excluding ADA complementary paratransit service, during peak service 

hours, in an amount not to exceed 75 percent of the 

share of the apportionment which is attributable to 

such systems within the urbanized area, as measured 

by vehicle revenue hours; or 

(ii) operate a minimum of 76 buses and a maximum of 100 buses in fixed route service or demand response service, excluding ADA complementary paratransit service, during peak service hours, in an 

amount not to exceed 50 percent of the share of the apportionment which is attributable to such systems 

within the urbanized area, as measured by vehicle revenue hours; or 

(B) subject to paragraph (3), for public transportation 

systems that— 

(i) operate 75 or fewer buses in fixed route service 

or demand response service, excluding ADA complementary paratransit service, during peak service 

hours, in an amount not to exceed 75 percent of the 

share of the apportionment allocated to such systems 

within the urbanized area, as determined by the local 

planning process and included in the designated recipient’s final program of projects prepared under subsection (b); or 

(ii) operate a minimum of 76 buses and a maximum of 100 buses in fixed route service or demand response service, excluding ADA complementary paratransit service during peak service hours, in an amount 

not to exceed 50 percent of the share of the apportionment allocated to such systems within the urbanized 

area, as determined by the local planning process and 

included in the designated recipient’s final program of 

projects prepared under subsection (b). 

(3) LIMITATION.—The amount available to a public transportation system under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) 

shall be not more than 10 percent greater than the amount that 

would otherwise be available to the system under subparagraph 

(A) of that paragraph. 

* * * * * * * 
157 

SUBTITLE V—RAIL PROGRAMS 

PART C—PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

CHAPTER 244—RAIL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS

§ 24408. Restoration and enhancement grants 

(a) APPLICANT DEFINED.—* * * 

(b) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of Transportation 

shall develop and implement a program for issuing operating assistance grants to applicants, on a competitive basis, for the purpose of initiating, restoring, øor enhancing¿ enhancing, or supporting intercity rail passenger transportation. 

(c) APPLICATION.—* * * 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(C) describes the funding of operating costs and capital costs, to the extent necessary, after the first 3 years 

of operation; and¿ 

* * * * * * * 

(d) PRIORITIES.—* * * 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(5) that include a funding plan that demonstrates the 

intercity rail passenger service will be financially sustainable 

beyond the 3-year grant period;¿ 

* * * * * * * 

ø(e) LIMIATIONS.—* * * 

ø(1) DURATION.—Federal operating assistance grants authorized under this section for any individual intercity rail passenger transportation route may not provide funding for more 

than 3 years and may not be renewed. 

ø(2) LIMITATION.—Not more than 6 of the operating assistance grants awarded pursuant to subsection (b) may be simultaneously active. 

ø(3) MAXIMUM FUNDING.—Grants described in paragraph 

(1) may not exceed— 

ø(A) 80 percent of the projected net operating costs for 

the first year of service; 

ø(B) 60 percent of the projected net operating costs for 

the second year of service; and 

ø(C) 40 percent of the projected net operating costs for 

the third year of service.¿ 

(e) Grants made under this section may not exceed 80 percent 

of the projected net operating costs. 

* * * * * * * 
158 

SUBTITLE VII—AVIATION PROGRAMS 

PART B—AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE

CHAPTER 471—AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

§ 47109. United States Government’s share of project costs 

(a) GENERAL.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) GRANDFATHER RULE.—* * * 

(1) IN GENERAL.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(2) LIMATION.—øThe 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 primary 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.¿ 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 primary non-hub and non-primary commercial service 

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. 

INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY 

ACT OF 1991, PUBLIC LAW 102–240 

TITLE I—SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

PART A—TITLE 23 PROGRAMS

SEC. 332. INTEGRATION OF CIVIL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 

INTO NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM. 

(c) IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL

HIGHWAY SYSTEM.—* * * 

(1) North-South Corridor from Kansas City, Missouri, to 

Shreveport, Louisiana. 

* * * * * * * 

(88) Interstate Route 205 in Oregon from its intersection 

with Interstate Route 5 to the Columbia River. 

(89) United State Route 67 from Interstate 40 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CORRIDORS.— 
159 

(1) LONG-RANGE PLAN.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(5) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ROUTE SEGMENTS ON INTERSTATE

SYSTEM.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The portions of the routes referred 

to in subsection (c)(1) subsection (c)(3) (solely as it relates 

to the Kentucky Corridor),, 1 in clauses (i), (ii), and (except 

with respect to Georgetown County) (iii) of subsection 

(c)(5)(B), in subsection (c)(9), subsection (c)(13), in subsection (c)(18), subsection (c)(20), subparagraphs (A) and 

(B)(i) of subsection (c)(26), subsection (c)(36), in subsection 

(c)(37), in subsection (c)(40), and in subsection (c)(57), subsection (c)(68)(B), subsection (c)(81), subsection (c)(82), 

øand subsection (c)(83)¿ subsection (c)(83), and subsection 

(c)(89) that are not a part of the Interstate System are designated as future parts of the Interstate System. Any segment of such routes shall become a part of the Interstate 

System at such time as the Secretary determines that the 

segment— 

CONSOLIDATED AND FURTHER CONTINUING 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012, PUBLIC LAW 112–55 

DIVISION C—TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION

To conduct a demonstration designed to preserve and improve 

public housing and certain other multifamily housing through the 

voluntary conversion of properties with assistance under section 9 

of the United States Housing Act of 1937, (hereinafter, ‘‘the Act’’), 

or the moderate rehabilitation program under section 8(e)(2) of the 

Act, to properties with assistance under a project-based subsidy 

contract under section 8 of the Act, which shall be eligible for renewal under section 524 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997, or assistance under section 

8(o)(13) of the Act, the Secretary may transfer amounts provided 

through contracts under section 8(e)(2) of the Act or under the 

headings ‘‘Public Housing Capital Fund’’ and ‘‘Public Housing Operating Fund’’ to the headings ‘‘Tenant-Based Rental Assistance’’ or 

‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’ (‘‘First Component’’ herein): 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 øuntil September 30, 2018¿ for fiscal 

year 2012 and thereafter: Provided further, That any increase in 

cost for ‘‘Tenant-Based Rental Assistance’’ or ‘‘Project-Based Rental 
160 

Assistance’’ associated with such conversion in excess of amounts 

made available under this heading shall be equal to amounts 

transferred from ‘‘Public Housing Capital Fund’’ and ‘‘Public Housing Operating Fund’’ or other account from which it was transferred: Provided further, That not more than ø185,000¿ 250,000 

units currently receiving assistance under section 9 or section 

8(e)(2) of the Act shall be converted under the authority provided 

under this heading: Provided further, That tenants of such properties with assistance converted from assistance under section 9 

shall, at a minimum, maintain the same rights under such conversion as those provided under sections 6 and 9 of the Act: Provided 

further, That the Secretary shall select properties from applications 

for conversion as part of this demonstration through a competitive 

process: Provided further, That in establishing criteria for such 

competition, the Secretary shall seek to demonstrate the feasibility 

of this conversion model to recapitalize and operate public housing 

properties (1) in different markets and geographic areas, (2) within 

portfolios managed by public housing agencies of varying sizes, and 

(3) by leveraging other sources of funding to recapitalize properties: 

Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide an opportunity 

for public comment on draft eligibility and selection criteria and 

procedures that will apply to the selection of properties that will 

participate in the demonstration: Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide an opportunity for comment from residents of 

properties to be proposed for participation in the demonstration to 

the owners or public housing agencies responsible for such properties: Provided further, That the Secretary may waive or specify 

alternative requirements for (except for requirements related to 

fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment) any provision of section 8(o)(13) or any provision that governs the use of assistance from which a property is converted under 

the demonstration or funds made available under the headings of 

‘‘Public Housing Capital Fund’’, ‘‘Public Housing Operating Fund’’, 

and ‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’, under this Act or any prior 

Act or any Act enacted during the period of conversion of assistance under the demonstration for properties with assistance converted under the demonstration, upon a finding by the Secretary 

that any such waivers or alternative requirements are necessary 

for the effective conversion of assistance under the demonstration: 

Provided further, That the Secretary shall publish by notice in the 

Federal Register any waivers or alternative requirements pursuant 

to the previous proviso no later than 10 days before the effective 

date of such notice: Provided further, That the demonstration may 

proceed after the Secretary publishes notice of its terms in the Federal Register: Provided further, That notwithstanding sections 3 

and 16 of the Act, the conversion of assistance under the demonstration shall not be the basis for re-screening or termination of 

assistance or eviction of any tenant family in a property participating in the demonstration, and such a family shall not be considered a new admission for any purpose, including compliance with 

income targeting requirements: Provided further, That in the case 

of a property with assistance converted under the demonstration 

from assistance under section 9 of the Act, section 18 of the Act 

shall not apply to a property converting assistance under the dem-
161 

onstration 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 or nonprofit 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 øpreserves its 

interest¿ or a nonprofit entity preserves an interest in the property 

in a manner approved by the Secretary, and upon expiration of the 

initial contract and each renewal contract, the Secretary shall offer 

and the owner of the property shall accept renewal of the contract 

subject to the terms and conditions applicable at the time of renewal and the availability of appropriations each year of such renewal: Provided further, That the Secretary may permit transfer of 

assistance at or after conversion under the demonstration to replacement units subject to the requirements in the previous proviso: Provided further, That the Secretary may establish the requirements for converted assistance under the demonstration 

through contracts, use agreements, regulations, or other means: 

Provided further, That the Secretary shall assess and publish findings regarding the impact of the conversion of assistance under the 

demonstration on the preservation and improvement of public 

housing, the amount of private sector leveraging as a result of such 

conversion, and the effect of such conversion on tenants: øProvided 

further, That owners of properties assisted under section 101 of the 

Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, section 236(f)(2) of 

the National Housing Act, or section 8(e)(2) of the United States 

Housing Act of 1937, for which an event after October 1, 2006 has 

caused or results in the termination of rental assistance or affordability restrictions and the issuance of tenant protection vouchers 

under section 8(o) of the Act, shall be eligible, subject to requirements established by the Secretary, including but not limited to 

tenant consultation procedures, for conversion of assistance available for such vouchers to assistance under a long-term projectbased 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 for fiscal 

year 2012 and hereafter, owners of properties assisted or previously 

assisted under section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development 

Act of 1965, section 236(f)(2) of the National Housing Act, or section 

8(e)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, for which a contract expires or terminates due to prepayment on or after October 1, 
162 

2006 has caused or results in the termination of rental assistance 

or affordability restrictions or both and the issuance of tenant protection vouchers under section 8(o) or section 8(t) of the Act, or with 

a project rental assistance contract under section 202(c)(2) of Housing Act of 1959, shall be eligible, subject to requirements established 

by the Secretary, including but not limited to tenant consultation 

procedures, for conversion of assistance available or provided for 

such vouchers or assistance contracts, to assistance under a longterm project-based subsidy contract under section 8 of the Act, 

which shall have a term of no less than 20 years, which shall have 

initial rents set at comparable market rents for the market area, 

with subsequent rent adjustments only by an operating cost factor 

established by the Secretary, and 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 subparagraph (B) of section 8(o)(13) of the Act shall not apply and for 

which the Secretary may waive or alter the provisions of subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 8(o)(13) of the Act (‘‘Second Component’’ herein): Provided further, That conversions of assistance 

under the Second Component may not be the basis for re-screening 

or termination of assistance or eviction of any tenant family in a 

property participating in the demonstration: Provided further, That 

amounts made available under the heading ‘‘Rental Housing Assistance’’ during the period of conversion under the øprevious 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:¿ Second Component, except for conversion of Section 

202 project rental assistance contracts, shall be available for projectbased subsidy contracts entered into pursuant to the Second Component: Provided further, That amounts, including contract authority, 

recaptured from contracts following a conversion under the øprevious two provisos¿ Second Component, except for conversion of section 202 project rental assistance contracts, 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 øthree previous provisos¿ Second 

Component, except for conversion of section 202 project rental assistance contracts, and any increase in cost for ‘‘Project-Based Rental 

Assistance’’ associated with such conversion shall be equal to 

amounts so transferred: Provided further, That the Secretary may 

transfer amounts made available under the heading ‘‘Housing for 

the Elderly’’ to the accounts under the headings ‘‘Project-Based 

Rental Assistance’’ or ‘‘Tenant-Based Rental Assistance’’ to facilitate 

any Section 202 project rental assistance contract conversions under 
163 

the Second Component, and any increase in cost for ‘‘Project-Based 

Rental Assistance’’ or ‘‘Tenant-Based Rental Assistance’’ associated 

with such conversion shall be equal to amounts so transferred: Provided further, That with respect to the øprevious four provisos¿ 

Second Component, as applicable, the Comptroller General of the 

United States shall conduct a study of the long-term impact of the 

fiscal year 2012 and 2013 conversion of tenant protection vouchers 

to assistance under section 8(o)(13) of the Act on the ratio of tenant-based vouchers to project-based vouchers. 

FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012, 

PUBLIC LAW 112–95 

TITLE III 

SAFETY 

SUBTITLE B—UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

SEC. 332. INTEGRATION OF CIVIL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 

INTO NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM. 

(a) REQUIRED PLANNING FOR INTEGRATION.— 

* * * * * * * 

(c) PILOT PROJECTS.— 

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(5) REPORT TO CONGRESS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(B) ADDITIONAL CONTENTS.—* * * 

(i) * * * 

(ii) to validate the sense and avoid capability and 

operation of unmanned aircraft systems. 

(6) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN FLIGHT TEST FACILITIES.—The 

Administrator shall expand the program established under 

paragraph (1) to permit projects under the program to be carried out at any public entity authorized by the Federal Aviation 

Administration as an unmanned aircraft system flight test center before January 1, 2009. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IX 

FEDERAL AVIATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

SEC. 911 RESEARCH PROGRAM ON ALTERNATIVE JET FUEL TECHNOLOGY FOR CIVIL AIRCRAFT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

* * * * * * * 

(b) AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.—The Administrator shall 

carry out the program through the use of grants or other measures 
164 

authorized under section 106(l)(6) of such title, including reimbursable agreements with other Federal agencies. 

(c) COLLABORATION AND REPORTING.— (1) The Administrator, in coordination with NASA, the Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and after 

consultation with other relevant agencies shall develop a joint 

plan to carry out the research under subsection (a) and report 

back to Congress within 180 days. 

(2) The Administrator, in coordination with the Administrator of NASA, the Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary of 

Agriculture, shall continue research and development activities 

into the development and deployment of jet fuels as outlined in 

subsection (a). 

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016, PUBLIC 

LAW 114–113 

DIVISION L—TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

ACT, 2016 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

SEC. 133. øNone of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 

available by this Act or any other Act may be used to implement, 

administer, or enforce sections 395.3(c) and 395.3(d) of title 49, 

Code of Federal Regulations, and such section shall have no force 

or effect on submission of the final report issued by the Secretary, 

as required by section 133 of division K of Public Law 113–235, unless the Secretary and the Inspector General of the Department of 

Transportation each review and determine that the final report— 

ø(1) meets the statutory requirements set forth in such 

section; and 

ø(2) establishes that commercial motor vehicle drivers who 

operated under the restart provisions in effect between July 1, 

2013, and the day before the date of enactment of such Public 

Law demonstrated statistically significant improvement in all 

outcomes related to safety, operator fatigue, driver health and 

longevity, and work schedules, in comparison to commercial 

motor vehicle drivers who operated under the restart provisions in effect on June 30, 2013.¿ 

(a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 

by this Act or any other Act may be used to implement, administer, 

or enforce the requirement for two off-duty periods from 1:00 a.m. 

to 5:00 a.m. under subsection 395.3(c) or the restriction on use of 

more than one restart during a 168-hour period under subsection 

395.3(d) of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, and such provisions shall have no force or effect as of the date of submission of 

the final report issued by the Secretary of Transportation, as required by section 133 of division K of Public Law 113–235, unless 

the Secretary and the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation each review and determine that the final report— 
165 

(1) meets the statutory requirements set forth in such section; and 

(2) establishes that commercial motor vehicle drivers who 

operated under the restart provisions in operational effect between July 1, 2013, and the day before the date of enactment 

of such Public Law demonstrated statistically significant improvement in all outcomes related to safety, operator fatigue, 

driver health and longevity, and work schedules, in comparison 

to commercial motor vehicle drivers who operated under the restart provisions in operational effect on June 30, 2013. 

(b) If the Secretary and Inspector General do not each make the 

determination required by subsection (a), the 34-hour restart rule in 

operational effect on June 30, 2013, shall be restored to full force 

and effect on the date the Secretary submits the final report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act or any other Act 

shall be available to implement, administer, or enforce such rule. 

(c) If the 34-hour restart rule in operational effect on June 30, 

2013, is restored to full force and effect pursuant to subsection (b), 

a driver who uses that restart rule may not drive after being on 

duty more than 73 hours in any period of 7 consecutive days, where 

the 7-day measurement period moves forward 1 day at midnight 

each day. 
166 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(A), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation Amount in bill Committee allocation Amount in bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with the 

subcommittee allocation for 2017: Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and Related 

Agencies: 

Mandatory ............................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Discretionary ........................................ 56,474 56,474 120,471 1 120,461 

Security ....................................... 275 275 NA NA 

Nonsecurity ................................. 56,199 56,199 NA NA 

Projections of outlays associated with the 

recommendation: 

2017 ..................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 2 42,595 

2018 ..................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 36,727 

2019 ..................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 14,920 

2020 ..................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 6,452 

2021 and future years ........................ ............................ ............................ ............................ 8,063 

Financial assistance to State and local 

governments for 2017 .............................. NA 31,866 NA 2 32,239 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 

NOTE.—Consistent with the funding recommended in the bill as an emergency requirement and in accordance with section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) 

of the BBEDCA of 1985, the Committee anticipates that the Budget Committee will provide a revised 302(a) allocation for the Committee on 

Appropriations reflecting an upward adjustment of $1,000,000 in outlays. 
167 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 108,750 114,396 116,396 ∂7,646 ∂2,000 

Immediate Office of the Secretary .................................................................................................................... (2,734) ............................ (2,758) (∂24) (∂2,758) Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary ........................................................................................................ (1,025) ............................ (1,040) (∂15) (∂1,040) Office of the General Counsel ........................................................................................................................... (20,609) ............................ (20,772) (∂163) (∂20,772) Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy .............................................................................. (9,941) ............................ (11,108) (∂1,167) (∂11,108) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs ........................................................................... (13,697) ............................ (16,020) (∂2,323) (∂16,020) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs ............................................................................. (2,546) ............................ (2,569) (∂23) (∂2,569) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ....................................................................................... (25,925) ............................ (30,054) (∂4,129) (∂30,054) Office of Public Affairs ..................................................................................................................................... (2,029) ............................ (2,142) (∂113) (∂2,142) Office of the Executive Secretariat ................................................................................................................... (1,737) ............................ (1,760) (∂23) (∂1,760) Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ................................................................................ (1,434) ............................ ............................ (¥1,434) ............................Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response .............................................................................. (10,793) ............................ (11,089) (∂296) (∂11,089) Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................................................................................. (16,280) ............................ (17,084) (∂804) (∂17,084) 

Research and technology ........................................................................................................................................... 13,000 18,007 13,044 ∂44 ¥4,963 National infrastructure investments .......................................................................................................................... 500,000 ............................ 525,000 ∂25,000 ∂525,000 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. ............................ (1,250,000) ............................ ............................ (¥1,250,000) (Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ ............................ (1,250,000) ............................ ............................ (¥1,250,000) 

National Surface Transportation and Innovative Finance Bureau ............................................................................ ............................ 3,000 3,000 ∂3,000 ............................Financial management capital .................................................................................................................................. 5,000 4,000 4,000 ¥1,000 ............................Cyber security initiatives ............................................................................................................................................ 8,000 15,000 15,000 ∂7,000 ............................DATA Act compliance ................................................................................................................................................. ............................ 4,000 ............................ ............................ ¥4,000 U.S. digital services ................................................................................................................................................... ............................ 1,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,000 Office of Civil Rights ................................................................................................................................................. 9,678 9,751 9,751 ∂73 ............................Transportation planning, research, and development ............................................................................................... 8,500 17,043 12,043 ∂3,543 ¥5,000 Working Capital Fund ................................................................................................................................................. (190,039) ............................ (190,389) (∂350) (∂190,389) Minority Business Resource Center Program ............................................................................................................. 933 941 941 ∂8 ............................

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (18,367) ............................ (18,367) ............................ (∂18,367) 

Small and disadvantaged business utilizaton and outreach/minority Business Outreach ...................................... 3,084 4,646 4,646 ∂1,562 ............................
168 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 appropriation Budget estimate 

Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) ........................................................................................... 175,000 150,000 150,000 ¥25,000 ............................

Administrative Provisions 

Working Capital Fund (Sec. 104) (reappropriation) .................................................................................................. ............................ 12,000 ............................ ............................ ¥12,000 

Total, Office of the Secretary ....................................................................................................................... 831,945 353,784 853,821 ∂21,876 ∂500,037 

(Limitation on obligations) .................................................................................................................. ............................ 1,250,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,250,000 

Total, budgetary resources .............................................................................................................. 831,945 1,603,784 853,821 ∂21,876 ¥749,963 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Operations .................................................................................................................................................................. 9,909,724 9,994,352 10,048,352 ∂138,628 ∂54,000 

Air traffic organization ...................................................................................................................................... (7,505,293) (7,539,785) (7,593,785) (∂88,492) (∂54,000) Aviation safety ................................................................................................................................................... (1,258,411) (1,286,982) (1,286,982) (∂28,571) ............................Commercial space transportation ..................................................................................................................... (17,800) (19,826) (19,826) (∂2,026) ............................Finance and management ................................................................................................................................ (760,500) (771,342) (771,342) (∂10,842) ............................NextGen .............................................................................................................................................................. (60,089) (60,155) (60,155) (∂66) ............................Security and hazardous materials safety ......................................................................................................... (100,880) (107,161) (107,161) (∂6,281) ............................Staff offices ....................................................................................................................................................... (206,751) (209,101) (209,101) (∂2,350) ............................

Facilities and equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) .......................................................................................... 2,855,000 2,838,000 2,838,000 ¥17,000 ............................Research, engineering, and development (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) ................................................................. 166,000 167,500 176,002 ∂10,002 ∂8,502 Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ....................... (3,600,000) (3,500,000) (3,750,000) (∂150,000) (∂250,000) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (3,350,000) (2,900,000) (3,350,000) ............................ (∂450,000) 

Administration .......................................................................................................................................... (107,100) (107,691) (107,691) (∂591) ............................Airport cooperative research program ...................................................................................................... (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) ............................ ............................Airport technology research ...................................................................................................................... (31,000) (31,375) (31,375) (∂375) ............................Small community air service development program ............................................................................... (5,000) ............................ (10,000) (∂5,000) (∂10,000) 

Total, Federal Aviation Administration ................................................................................................ 12,930,724 12,999,852 13,062,354 ∂131,630 ∂62,502 

Limitations on obligations .............................................................................................................. (3,350,000) (2,900,000) (3,350,000) ............................ (∂450,000) 
169 

Total budgetary resources .......................................................................................................... (16,280,724) (15,899,852) (16,412,354) (∂131,630) (∂512,502) 

Federal Highway Administration 

Limitation on Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................................................... (429,000) (435,795) (435,795) (∂6,795) ............................Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (43,100,000) (44,005,100) (44,005,100) (∂905,100) ............................(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (42,361,000) (43,266,100) (43,266,100) (∂905,100) ............................(Exempt contract authority) .............................................................................................................................. (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ............................ ............................

21st Century Regions Grant Program (legislative proposal) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ...................... ............................ (5,500,000) ............................ ............................ (¥5,500,000) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ ............................ (5,500,000) ............................ ............................ (¥5,500,000) 

Future Freight Systems Grant Program (legislative proposal) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ................... ............................ (2,000,000) ............................ ............................ (¥2,000,000) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ ............................ (2,000,000) ............................ ............................ (¥2,000,000) 

Rescission of contract authority (Highway Trust Fund) ............................................................................................ ............................ ¥2,436,000 ¥2,211,000 ¥2,211,000 ∂225,000 

Total, Federal Highway Administration ......................................................................................................... ............................ ¥2,436,000 ¥2,211,000 ¥2,211,000 ∂225,000 

Limitations on obligations ................................................................................................................... (42,361,000) (50,766,100) (43,266,100) (∂905,100) (¥7,500,000) Exempt contract authority ................................................................................................................... (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ............................ ............................

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................... (43,100,000) (49,069,100) (41,794,100) (¥1,305,900) (¥7,275,000) 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ....... (267,400) (277,200) (277,200) (∂9,800) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (267,400) (277,200) (277,200) (∂9,800) ............................

Safety investments (legislative proposal) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ................................................... ............................ (150,000) ............................ ............................ (¥150,000) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ ............................ (150,000) ............................ ............................ (¥150,000) 

Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ..................................... (313,000) (367,000) (367,000) (∂54,000) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (313,000) (367,000) (367,000) (∂54,000) ............................

Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ...................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Limitations on obligations ................................................................................................................... (580,400) (794,200) (644,200) (∂63,800) (¥150,000) 

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................... (580,400) (794,200) (644,200) (∂63,800) (¥150,000) 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Operations and research (general fund) ................................................................................................................... 152,800 ............................ 160,075 ∂7,275 ∂160,075 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. ............................ (250,000) ............................ ............................ (¥250,000) 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... ............................ (250,000) ............................ ............................ (¥250,000) 

Operations and Research (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (142,900) (145,900) (145,900) (∂3,000) ............................
170 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 appropriation Budget estimate 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (142,900) (145,900) (145,900) (∂3,000) ............................

Subtotal, Operations and Research .............................................................................................................. 295,700 395,900 305,975 ∂10,275 ¥89,925 

Autonomous vehicle development (legislative proposal) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................ ............................ (200,000) ............................ ............................ (¥200,000) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ ............................ (200,000) ............................ ............................ (¥200,000) 

Highway Traffic Safety Grants (Highway Trust Fund) 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (573,332) (585,372) (585,372) (∂12,040) ............................(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (573,332) (585,372) (585,372) (∂12,040) ............................

Highway safety programs (23 USC 402) ................................................................................................. (243,500) (252,300) (252,300) (∂8,800) ............................National priority safety programs (23 USC 405) ..................................................................................... (274,700) (277,500) (277,500) (∂2,800) ............................High visibility enforcement ...................................................................................................................... (29,300) (29,500) (29,500) (∂200) ............................Administrative expenses ........................................................................................................................... (25,832) (26,072) (26,072) (∂240) ............................

Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ....................................................................... 152,800 ............................ 160,075 ∂7,275 ∂160,075 

Limitations on obligations .......................................................................................................... (716,232) (1,181,272) (731,272) (∂15,040) (¥450,000) 

Total budgetary resources ................................................................................................. (869,032) (1,181,272) (891,347) (∂22,315) (¥289,925) 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety and operations ................................................................................................................................................ 199,000 213,298 208,500 ∂9,500 ¥4,798 Railroad research and development .......................................................................................................................... 39,100 53,500 40,100 ∂1,000 ¥13,400 Railroad safety grants ............................................................................................................................................... 50,000 ............................ ............................ ¥50,000 ............................Rail service improvement program ............................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. ............................ (3,700,000) ............................ ............................ (¥3,700,000) 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... ............................ (3,700,000) ............................ ............................ (¥3,700,000) 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................ 288,100 266,798 248,600 ¥39,500 ¥18,198 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation: 

Operating grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ................................................................. 288,500 ............................ ............................ ¥288,500 ............................
171 

Capital and debt service grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ......................................... 1,101,500 ............................ ............................ ¥1,101,500 ............................Current rail passenger service .......................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. ............................ (2,300,000) ............................ ............................ (¥2,300,000) 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... ............................ (2,300,000) ............................ ............................ (¥2,300,000) 

Northeast Corridor Grants ................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 345,000 ∂345,000 ∂345,000 National Network ............................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 1,075,000 ∂1,075,000 ∂1,075,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,390,000 ............................ 1,420,000 ∂30,000 ∂1,420,000 

Consolidated rail infrastructure and safety improvements .............................................................................. ............................ ............................ 50,000 ∂50,000 ∂50,000 Federal State Partnership for State of Good Repair ........................................................................................ ............................ ............................ 20,000 ∂20,000 ∂20,000 Restoration and enhancement grants .............................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 15,000 ∂15,000 ∂15,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 85,000 ∂85,000 ∂85,000 

Administrative Provisions 

Transportation Technology Center financing (Sec. 151) ........................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Rail unobligated balances (rescission) (Sec. 152) ................................................................................................... ¥1,960 ............................ ............................ ∂1,960 ............................RRIF application expenses (Sec. 152) ....................................................................................................................... 1,960 ............................ ............................ ¥1,960 ............................Rail unobligated balances (rescission) (Sec. 153) ................................................................................................... ¥19,163 ............................ ............................ ∂19,163 ............................Northeast Corridor Capital grants (Sec. 153) ........................................................................................................... 19,163 ............................ ............................ ¥19,163 ............................

Total, Federal Railroad Administration ......................................................................................................... 1,678,100 266,798 1,753,600 ∂75,500 ∂1,486,802 

(Limitation on obligations) .................................................................................................................. ............................ 6,000,000 ............................ ............................ ¥6,000,000 

Total, budgetary resources .............................................................................................................. 1,678,100 6,266,798 1,753,600 ∂75,500 ¥4,513,198 

Federal Transit Administration 

Administrative expenses ............................................................................................................................................. 108,000 ............................ 110,665 ∂2,665 ∂110,665 Transit formula grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account ) (Liqiuidation of contract authorization) ........... (10,400,000) (10,800,000) (10,800,000) (∂400,000) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (9,347,605) (9,733,706) (9,733,706) (∂386,101) ............................

Supplementary transit formula grants (legislative proposal) (Liquidation of contract authorization) .................... ............................ (5,860,000) ............................ ............................ (¥5,860,000) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ ............................ (5,860,000) ............................ ............................ (¥5,860,000) 

Rapid-Growth Transit Program (legislative proposal) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ................................ ............................ (525,000) ............................ ............................ (¥525,000) 

(limitation on obligations) ............................................................................................................................ ............................ (525,000) ............................ ............................ (¥525,000) 

Capital investment grants ......................................................................................................................................... 2,177,000 ............................ 2,338,063 ∂161,063 ∂2,338,063 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. ............................ (3,500,000) ............................ ............................ (¥3,500,000) 

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................................................................... ............................ (3,500,000) ............................ ............................ (¥3,500,000) 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Capital and Preventive Maintenance ........................................... 150,000 150,000 150,000 ............................ ............................
172 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 appropriation Budget estimate 

Administrative Provisions 

Rescission (Sec. 166) ................................................................................................................................................. ¥25,398 ............................ ............................ ∂25,398 ............................

Total, Federal Transit Administration ........................................................................................................... 2,409,602 150,000 2,598,728 ∂189,126 ∂2,448,728 

Limitations on obligations ................................................................................................................... (9,347,605) (19,618,706) (9,733,706) (∂386,101) (¥9,885,000) 

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................... (11,757,207) (19,768,706) (12,332,434) (∂575,227) (¥7,436,272) 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) .............................................................................. 28,400 36,028 36,028 ∂7,628 ............................

Maritime Administration 

Maritime Security Program ......................................................................................................................................... 210,000 211,000 275,000 ∂65,000 ∂64,000 Operations and training ............................................................................................................................................. 171,155 194,146 175,160 ∂4,005 ¥18,986 Assistance to small shipyards ................................................................................................................................... 5,000 ............................ 10,000 ∂5,000 ∂10,000 Ship disposal .............................................................................................................................................................. 5,000 20,000 20,000 ∂15,000 ............................Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account: 

Administrative expenses .................................................................................................................................... 3,135 3,000 3,000 ¥135 ............................Guaranteed loans subsidy ................................................................................................................................. 5,000 ............................ 2,000 ¥3,000 ∂2,000 Rescission .......................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥5,000 ............................ ............................ ∂5,000 

Total, Maritime Administration ..................................................................................................................... 399,290 423,146 485,160 ∂85,870 ∂62,014 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Operational expenses: 

General fund ...................................................................................................................................................... 21,000 23,688 23,207 ∂2,207 ¥481 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 21,000 23,688 23,207 ∂2,207 ¥481 

Hazardous materials safety: 

General fund ...................................................................................................................................................... 55,619 68,249 57,619 ∂2,000 ¥10,630 
173 

Special permit and approval Fees .................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 55,619 68,249 57,619 ∂2,000 ¥10,630 

Pipeline Safety: 

Pipeline Safety Fund ......................................................................................................................................... 124,500 153,443 129,671 ∂5,171 ¥23,772 Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund ............................................................................................................................. 22,123 19,500 20,288 ¥1,835 ∂788 Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund ................................................................................................................. ............................ 2,000 ............................ ............................ ¥2,000 Pipeline safety information grants (by transfer) .............................................................................................. ............................ (1,500) (1,500) (∂1,500) ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 146,623 174,943 149,959 ∂3,336 ¥24,984 Subtotal, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ............................................................ 223,242 266,880 230,785 ∂7,543 ¥36,095 

Pipeline safety user fees ............................................................................................................................................ ¥124,500 ¥153,443 ¥129,671 ¥5,171 ∂23,772 Pipeline safety design review fee .............................................................................................................................. ............................ ¥2,000 ............................ ............................ ∂2,000 Emergency preparedness grants: 

Limitation on emergency preparedness fund ................................................................................................... (28,318) (28,318) (28,318) ............................ ............................

(Emergency preparedness fund) .............................................................................................................. (188) ............................ ............................ (¥188) ............................

Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ........................................................ 98,742 111,437 101,114 ∂2,372 ¥10,323 

Office of Inspector General 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 87,472 90,152 93,550 ∂6,078 ∂3,398 Surface Transportation Board .................................................................................................................................... 32,375 ............................ ............................ ¥32,375 ............................

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥1,250 ............................ ............................ ∂1,250 ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 31,125 ............................ ............................ ¥31,125 ............................Total, title I, Department of Transportation ................................................................................................. 18,648,200 11,995,197 16,933,430 ¥1,714,770 ∂4,938,233 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (18,695,971) (14,436,197) (19,144,430) (∂448,459) (∂4,708,233) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥46,521) (¥5,000) ............................ (∂46,521) (∂5,000) Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ ............................ (¥2,436,000) (¥2,211,000) (¥2,211,000) (∂225,000) 

(By transfer) .................................................................................................................................................. ............................ (1,500) (1,500) (∂1,500) ............................Limitations on obligations ............................................................................................................................ (56,355,237) (82,510,278) (57,725,278) (∂1,370,041) (¥24,785,000) Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (75,003,437) (94,505,475) (74,658,708) (¥344,729) (¥19,846,767) 
174 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Management and Administration 

Executive Offices ........................................................................................................................................................ 13,800 14,479 30,608 ∂16,808 ∂16,129 Administration Support Offices .................................................................................................................................. 559,100 520,062 503,852 ¥55,248 ¥16,210 Program Office Salaries and Expenses: 

Public and Indian Housing ............................................................................................................................... 205,500 220,932 220,500 ∂15,000 ¥432 Community Planning and Development ............................................................................................................ 104,800 110,259 110,000 ∂5,200 ¥259 Housing .............................................................................................................................................................. 375,000 393,148 393,000 ∂18,000 ¥148 Policy Development and Research .................................................................................................................... 23,100 24,500 24,500 ∂1,400 ............................Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ................................................................................................................ 72,000 74,235 74,235 ∂2,235 ............................Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes .......................................................................................... 7,000 7,826 8,075 ∂1,075 ∂249 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 787,400 830,900 830,310 ∂42,910 ¥590 Total, Management and Administration ....................................................................................................... 1,360,300 1,365,441 1,364,770 ∂4,470 ¥671 

Public and Indian Housing 

Tenant-based rental assistance: 

Renewals ........................................................................................................................................................... 17,681,451 18,447,000 18,355,000 ∂673,549 ¥92,000 Tenant protection vouchers ............................................................................................................................... 130,000 110,000 110,000 ¥20,000 ............................Administrative fees ........................................................................................................................................... 1,650,000 2,077,000 1,768,696 ∂118,696 ¥308,304 Incremental rental vouchers ............................................................................................................................. ............................ 88,000 ............................ ............................ ¥88,000 Incremental family unification vouchers .......................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 20,000 ∂20,000 ∂20,000 Sec. 811 mainstream voucher renewals ........................................................................................................... 107,074 110,000 110,000 ∂2,926 ............................Veterans affairs supportive housing ................................................................................................................. 60,000 7,000 57,000 ¥3,000 ∂50,000 Mobility demonstration ...................................................................................................................................... ............................ 15,000 11,000 ∂11,000 ¥4,000 

Subtotal (available this fiscal year) ............................................................................................................ 19,628,525 20,854,000 20,431,696 ∂803,171 ¥422,304 

Advance appropriations ..................................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 ............................ ............................
175 

Less appropriations from prior year advances ................................................................................................. ¥4,000,000 ¥4,000,000 ¥4,000,000 ............................ ............................

Total, Tenant-based rental assistance appropriated in this bill ................................................................ 19,628,525 20,854,000 20,431,696 ∂803,171 ¥422,304 

Public Housing Capital Fund ..................................................................................................................................... 1,900,000 1,865,000 1,925,000 ∂25,000 ∂60,000 Public Housing Operating Fund ................................................................................................................................. 4,500,000 4,569,000 4,675,000 ∂175,000 ∂106,000 Choice neighborhoods ................................................................................................................................................ 125,000 200,000 80,000 ¥45,000 ¥120,000 Family self-sufficiency ............................................................................................................................................... 75,000 75,000 75,000 ............................ ............................Native American Housing Block Grants ..................................................................................................................... 650,000 700,000 ............................ ¥650,000 ¥700,000 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (17,452) (17,857) ............................ (¥17,452) (¥17,857) 

Indian blockgrants: 

Indian Housing Blocks grants ........................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 654,000 ∂654,000 ∂654,000 (Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ (17,857) (∂17,857) (∂17,857) Indian CDBG ...................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 60,000 ∂60,000 ∂60,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 714,000 ∂714,000 ∂714,000 

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant ....................................................................................................................... ............................ 500 5,000 ∂5,000 ∂4,500 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account .......................................................................................... 7,500 5,500 6,500 ¥1,000 ∂1,000 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (1,190,476) (1,341,463) (1,585,366) (∂394,890) (∂243,903) 

Total, Public and Indian Housing ................................................................................................................. 26,886,025 28,269,000 27,912,196 ∂1,026,171 ¥356,804 

Community Planning and Development 

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS ............................................................................................................ 335,000 335,000 335,000 ............................ ............................Community Development Fund: 

CDBG formula .................................................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 2,800,000 3,000,000 ............................ ∂200,000 Indian CDBG ...................................................................................................................................................... 60,000 80,000 ............................ ¥60,000 ¥80,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 3,060,000 2,880,000 3,000,000 ¥60,000 ∂120,000 

Community development loan guarantees (Section 108): 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (300,000) (300,000) (300,000) ............................ ............................

HOME Investment Partnerships Program ................................................................................................................... 950,000 950,000 950,000 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 950,000 950,000 950,000 ............................ ............................

Self-help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program .................................................................................. 55,700 ............................ 54,000 ¥1,700 ∂54,000 Homeless Assistance Grants ...................................................................................................................................... 2,250,000 2,664,000 2,330,000 ∂80,000 ¥334,000 
176 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 appropriation Budget estimate 

Total, Community Planning and Development ............................................................................................. 6,650,700 6,829,000 6,669,000 ∂18,300 ¥160,000 

Housing Programs 

Rental assistance demonstration .............................................................................................................................. ............................ 50,000 4,000 ∂4,000 ¥46,000 Project-based rental assistance: 

Renewals ........................................................................................................................................................... 10,405,000 10,581,000 10,666,000 ∂261,000 ∂85,000 Contract administrators .................................................................................................................................... 215,000 235,000 235,000 ∂20,000 ............................

Subtotal (available this fiscal year) ............................................................................................................ 10,620,000 10,816,000 10,901,000 ∂281,000 ∂85,000 

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 ................................................................ 10,620,000 10,816,000 10,901,000 ∂281,000 ∂85,000 

Housing for the elderly ............................................................................................................................................... 432,700 505,000 505,000 ∂72,300 ............................Housing for persons with disabilities ........................................................................................................................ 150,600 154,000 154,000 ∂3,400 ............................

Policy Development and Research (transfer out) ............................................................................................. ............................ (¥770) ............................ ............................ (∂770) 

Housing counseling assistance .................................................................................................................................. 47,000 47,000 47,000 ............................ ............................Rental housing assistance ......................................................................................................................................... 30,000 20,000 20,000 ¥10,000 ............................Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund .................................................................................................................... 10,500 11,500 10,500 ............................ ¥1,000 

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥10,500 ¥11,500 ¥10,500 ............................ ∂1,000 

Total, Housing programs .............................................................................................................................. 11,280,300 11,592,000 11,631,000 ∂350,700 ∂39,000 

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) .............................................................................................................................. (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥7,003,000 ¥7,437,000 ¥7,437,000 ¥434,000 ............................
177 

Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM) ................................................................................................................ ¥97,000 ¥97,000 ¥97,000 ............................ ............................Additional offsetting receipts (Sec. 238) .......................................................................................................... ............................ ¥30,000 ............................ ............................ ∂30,000 Administrative contract expenses ..................................................................................................................... 130,000 160,000 130,000 ............................ ¥30,000 

General and Special Risk Program Account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (30,000,000) (30,000,000) (30,000,000) ............................ ............................(Limitation on direct loans) .............................................................................................................................. (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥657,000 ¥464,000 ¥464,000 ∂193,000 ............................

Total, Federal Housing Administration ......................................................................................................... ¥7,627,000 ¥7,868,000 ¥7,868,000 ¥241,000 ............................

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 .................................................................................................................................... 23,000 23,000 23,000 ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥118,000 ¥101,000 ¥101,000 ∂17,000 ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥747,000 ¥1,102,000 ¥1,102,000 ¥355,000 ............................Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM) ................................................................................................................ ¥21,000 ¥21,000 ¥21,000 ............................ ............................Additional contract expenses ............................................................................................................................ 1,000 1,000 1,000 ............................ ............................

Total, Gov’t National Mortgage Association ................................................................................................. ¥862,000 ¥1,200,000 ¥1,200,000 ¥338,000 ............................

Policy Development and Research 

Research and technology ........................................................................................................................................... 85,000 65,000 90,000 ∂5,000 ∂25,000 

(By transfer) ...................................................................................................................................................... ............................ (120,000) ............................ ............................ (¥120,000) 

Total (including transfer) ............................................................................................................................. 85,000 185,000 90,000 ∂5,000 ¥95,000 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 

Fair housing activities ............................................................................................................................................... 65,300 70,000 65,300 ............................ ¥4,700 

Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes 

Lead hazard reduction ............................................................................................................................................... 110,000 110,000 135,000 ∂25,000 ∂25,000 

Policy Development and Research (transfer out) ............................................................................................. ............................ (¥550) ............................ ............................ (∂550) 

Information Technology Fund ..................................................................................................................................... 250,000 286,000 273,000 ∂23,000 ¥13,000 Office of Inspector General ........................................................................................................................................ 126,000 129,000 129,000 ∂3,000 ............................
178 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 appropriation Budget estimate 

General Provisions 

Unobligated balances (Sec. 241) (rescission) ........................................................................................................... ¥14,000 ............................ ............................ ∂14,000 ............................

Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Development .................................................................. 38,310,625 39,647,441 39,201,266 ∂890,641 ¥446,175 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (42,578,125) (44,510,941) (44,033,766) (∂1,455,641) (¥477,175) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥14,000) ............................ ............................ (∂14,000) ............................Advance appropriations ....................................................................................................................... (4,400,000) (4,400,000) (4,400,000) ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................... (¥8,643,000) (¥9,252,000) (¥9,222,000) (¥579,000) (∂30,000) Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................... (¥10,500) (¥11,500) (¥10,500) ............................ (∂1,000) 

(By transfer) .................................................................................................................................................. ............................ 120,000 ............................ ............................ ¥120,000 (Limitation on direct loans) .......................................................................................................................... (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ............................ ............................(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................................................................................. (931,507,928) (931,659,320) (931,903,223) (∂395,295) (∂243,903) 

TITLE III—OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Access Board .............................................................................................................................................................. 8,023 8,190 8,190 ∂167 ............................Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General (legislative proposal) (transfer out) ....................... ............................ (¥50,000) ............................ ............................ (∂50,000) Office of Inspector General (legislative proposal) (by transfer) ............................................................................... ............................ (50,000) ............................ ............................ (¥50,000) Federal Maritime Commission .................................................................................................................................... 25,660 27,490 27,490 ∂1,830 ............................National Railroad Passenger Corporation Office of Inspector General ..................................................................... 24,499 23,274 23,274 ¥1,225 ............................National Transportation Safety Board ........................................................................................................................ 105,170 106,000 106,000 ∂830 ............................Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ................................................................................................................... 175,000 140,000 135,000 ¥40,000 ¥5,000 Surface Transportation Board .................................................................................................................................... ............................ 42,401 37,000 ∂37,000 ¥5,401 

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ............................ ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... ............................ 41,151 35,750 ∂35,750 ¥5,401 

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ................................................................................................ 3,530 3,600 3,600 ∂70 ............................

Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies ................................................................................................. 341,882 349,705 339,304 ¥2,578 ¥10,401 
179 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS ACT 

Community Development Fund (disaster relief category) (Sec. 420) ........................................................................ 300,000 ............................ ............................ ¥300,000 ............................

Grand total .................................................................................................................................................... 57,600,707 51,992,343 56,474,000 ¥1,126,707 ∂4,481,657 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (61,615,978) (59,298,093) (63,518,750) (∂1,902,772) (∂4,220,657) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥60,521) (¥5,000) ............................ (∂60,521) (∂5,000) Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ ............................ (¥2,436,000) (¥2,211,000) (¥2,211,000) (∂225,000) Advance appropriations ....................................................................................................................... (4,400,000) (4,400,000) (4,400,000) ............................ ............................Disaster relief category ........................................................................................................................ (300,000) ............................ ............................ (¥300,000) ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................... (¥8,643,000) (¥9,252,000) (¥9,222,000) (¥579,000) (∂30,000) Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................... (¥11,750) (¥12,750) (¥11,750) ............................ (∂1,000) 

(By transfer) .................................................................................................................................................. ............................ 171,500 1,500 ∂1,500 ¥170,000 (Limitation on obligations) ........................................................................................................................... (56,355,237) (82,510,278) (57,725,278) (∂1,370,041) (¥24,785,000) 

Æ