Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?


                                                       Calendar No. 138
114th Congress     }                                    {       Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session       }                                    {       114-75

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



 
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                       APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2016
                                _______
                                

                 June 25, 2015.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Ms. Collins, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the 
                               following

                                 REPORT

                        [To accompany H.R. 2577]

    The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2577) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon with an amendment, and recommends that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.



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

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $55,646,000,000
Amount of 2015 appropriations...........................  53,772,000,000
Amount of 2016 budget estimate\1\.......................  55,346,458,000
Amount of 2016 House allowance..........................  55,260,800,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
    2015 appropriations.................................  +1,874,000,000
    2016 budget estimate................................    +299,542,000
    House allowance.....................................    +385,200,000

\1\The budget estimate proposed converting $7,303,000,000 associated 
with certain surface transportation programs previously treated as 
budget authority into obligation limits. The Committee recommendation 
does not reclassify the funding for these programs.











                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Overview and Summary of the Bill.................................     3
Program, Project, and Activity...................................     4
Reprogramming Guidelines.........................................     4
Congressional Budget Justifications..............................     5
Increasing Efficiency............................................     6
Title I: Department of Transportation:
    Office of the Secretary......................................     8
    Federal Aviation Administration..............................    27
    Federal Highway Administration...............................    44
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration..................    53
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...............    59
    Federal Railroad Administration..............................    65
    Federal Transit Administration...............................    75
    Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation................    83
    Maritime Administration......................................    84
    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.......    89
    Office of Inspector General..................................    94
    Surface Transportation Board.................................    95
    General Provisions--Department of Transportation.............    95
Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
    Management and Administration................................    99
    Administrative Support Offices...............................   101
    Program Offices Salaries and Expenses........................   104
    Public and Indian Housing....................................   109
    Community Planning and Development...........................   121
    Housing Programs.............................................   130
    Federal Housing Administration...............................   135
    Government National Mortgage Association.....................   137
    Policy Development and Research..............................   137
    Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity...........................   140
    Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes..............   141
    Information Technology Fund..................................   141
    Office of Inspector General..................................   143
    General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban 
      Development................................................   143
Title III: Independent Agencies:
    Access Board.................................................   146
    Federal Maritime Commission..................................   147
    National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Office of Inspector 
      General....................................................   147
    National Transportation Safety Board.........................   148
    Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................   149
    United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............   150
Title IV: General Provisions--This Act...........................   152
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   153
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   154
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   154
Budgetary Impact of Bill.........................................   166
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................   167

                    OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL

    The Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and 
Related Agencies appropriations bill provides funding for a 
wide array of Federal programs, mostly in the Departments of 
Transportation [DOT] and Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. 
These programs include investments in road, transit, rail, 
maritime, and airport infrastructure; the operation of the 
Nation's air traffic control system; housing assistance for 
those in need, including the homeless, elderly, and disabled; 
resources to support community planning and development; 
activities to improve road, rail, and pipeline safety; and a 
wide range of research efforts.
    The bill also provides funding for the Federal Housing 
Administration and Government National Mortgage Association to 
continue their traditional roles of providing access to 
affordable homeownership in the United States.
    The programs and activities supported by this bill include 
significant responsibilities entrusted to the Federal 
Government and its partners to protect human health and safety, 
support a vibrant economy, and achieve policy objectives 
strongly supported by the American people. The funding provided 
in this bill supports the investments necessary for a strong 
and economically competitive Nation. The ability to fulfill 
these responsibilities and make important investments is made 
challenging by pressure on available levels of discretionary 
spending as a consequence of the overall public debate on 
Federal spending, revenues, and size of the Federal debt.
    This bill makes the operation of the interstate highway 
system possible, as well as the world's safest air 
transportation system. It ensures safe and sanitary housing for 
4.7 million low and extremely low-income families and 
individuals, over half of whom are elderly and/or disabled. It 
provides funding that is leading to the gradual elimination of 
homelessness among veterans. This bill also includes funding 
for competitive grants to communities to support transportation 
infrastructure projects of national or regional importance.
    In the context of overall pressures on spending and the 
competing priorities that the Committee faces, this bill, as 
reported, provides the proper amount of emphasis on 
transportation, housing, community development, and other 
programs and activities funded within it. It is consistent with 
the subcommittee's allocation for fiscal year 2016. All 
accounts in the bill have been closely examined to ensure that 
an appropriate level of funding is provided to carry out the 
programs of DOT, HUD, and related agencies. Details on each of 
the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's 
justifications for the funding levels are included in the 
report.

                     PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

    During fiscal year 2016, for the purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained 
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and 
activity'' [PPA] shall mean any item for which a dollar amount 
is contained in appropriations acts (including joint 
resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or 
accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint 
explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This 
definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget 
(obligational) authority is provided, as well as to 
discretionary grants and discretionary grant allocations made 
through either bill or report language. For example, the 
percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to 
funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal 
Aviation Administration, would be applied equally to each 
budget item that is listed under said account in the budget 
justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations acts 
and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or 
joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference.

                        REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

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

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

    Budget justifications are the primary tool used by the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations to evaluate the 
resource requirements and fiscal needs of agencies. The 
Committee is aware that the format and presentation of budget 
materials is largely left to the agency within presentation 
objectives set forth by OMB. In fact, OMB Circular A-11, part 6 
specifically states that the ``agency should consult with your 
congressional committees beforehand to ensure their awareness 
of your plans to modify the format of agency budget 
documents.'' The Committee expects that all agencies funded 
under this act will heed this directive. The Committee expects 
all of the budget justifications to provide the data needed to 
make appropriate and meaningful funding decisions.
    While the Committee values the inclusion of performance 
data and presentations, it is important to ensure that vital 
budget information that the Committee needs is not lost. 
Therefore, the Committee directs that justifications submitted 
with the fiscal year 2017 budget request by agencies funded 
under this act contain the customary level of detailed data and 
explanatory statements to support the appropriations requests 
at the level of detail contained in the funding table included 
at the end of the report. Among other items, agencies shall 
provide a detailed discussion of proposed new initiatives, 
proposed changes in the agency's financial plan from prior year 
enactment, and detailed data on all programs and comprehensive 
information on any office or agency restructurings. At a 
minimum, each agency must also provide adequate justification 
for funding and staffing changes for each individual office and 
materials that compare programs, projects, and activities that 
are proposed for fiscal year 2017 to the fiscal year 2016 
enacted level.
    The Committee is aware that the analytical materials 
required for review by the Committee are unique to each agency 
in this act. Therefore, the Committee expects that the each 
agency will coordinate with the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations in advance on its planned presentation for its 
budget justification materials in support of the fiscal year 
2017 budget request.

                         INCREASING EFFICIENCY

    The departments, agencies, boards, and commissions funded 
in this bill can and should continue to reduce operating 
expenses by placing greater scrutiny on overhead costs. Savings 
can and should be achieved by reducing non-essential travel, 
office supply, rent, and utility costs. The Committee directs 
each department, agency, board, and commission funded in this 
bill to develop a plan to reduce such costs by at least 10 
percent in fiscal year 2016. Plans to achieve these savings in 
fiscal year 2016 should be submitted to the Committee no later 
than 30 days after enactment of this act.
    The Committee is concerned about the millions of taxpayer 
dollars spent on wasteful printing practices each year and the 
lack of clear printing policies within Federal agencies. While 
progress has been made to better utilize the cloud and 
digitalize records, little progress has been made to reform in-
house printing practices. The Committee recommends the 
Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development 
work with Office of Management and Budget to reduce printing 
and reproduction by 34 percent and report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days after 
enactment of this Act on what steps have been taken to reduce 
printing volume and costs. The report should specifically 
identify how much money each agency will be saving.

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    The Solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and Authorization of 
Transportation Program.--This year, the Committee is once again 
in the position of recommending funding levels for Federal 
highway, transit, and highway and truck safety programs without 
any assurances that sufficient balances will be available from 
the Highway Trust Fund to support these programs, even at the 
funding levels enacted for the current year. Furthermore, the 
Committee is conducting its work without any certainty that the 
necessary contract authority will be available for the whole of 
fiscal year 2016.
    The Department of Transportation currently projects that 
the balances of the Highway Trust Fund will reach critical 
levels in July of this year. At that point, the Department 
expects it will have to delay reimbursements to States who have 
spent their own funds on eligible highway projects. 
Furthermore, both the Department and the Congressional Budget 
Office project that current balances will be depleted before 
the end of fiscal year 2016.
    When the Department of Transportation is forced to delay 
its reimbursements, the Federal Government has failed to uphold 
its commitments to the State and local governments that rely on 
these transportation programs to support their communities. If 
we do not protect the solvency of the trust fund, then we 
suddenly leave State governments bearing the full cost of these 
transportation projects. Many States are deciding that they 
cannot rely on the Federal Government this summer. They are 
bracing for a shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund by delaying 
construction projects that would have supported jobs and 
improved their transportation systems.
    The funding of most surface transportation programs also 
relies on the availability of contract authority, which expires 
under current law at the end of July. The Administration has 
released its proposal for authorizing these programs over the 
next 6 years, and the relevant authorizing committees are 
putting together their legislation. Unfortunately, it is still 
not clear if the levels of contract authority for the next 
fiscal year will be enacted as part of a multi-year 
authorization law, a short-term extension that covers all of 
fiscal year 2016, or a series of short-term extensions that 
eventually cover the whole fiscal year.
    The Committee has spoken on these issues many times in 
recent years. Committee reports have repeatedly called for 
bringing long-term solvency to the Highway Trust Fund, and for 
7 years in a row, the Committee has recommended funding levels 
without knowing when the necessary contract authority would be 
enacted.
    In order to put forward realistic funding recommendations, 
the Committee is assuming that authorization for transportation 
programs will be extended through fiscal year 2016 at the 
levels authorized for fiscal year 2015. This assumption is 
consistent with recent extensions of the transportation 
programs. This assumption is especially relevant for those 
programs that rely on contract authority provided in the 
authorization acts, including the Federal-aid Highways program, 
the formula and bus transit programs, the programs of the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and most funding 
for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

                        Office of the Secretary

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

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $105,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     113,657,000
House allowance.........................................      93,500,000
Committee recommendation................................     110,738,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $110,738,000 for 
salaries and expenses of OST, including $60,000 for reception 
and representation expenses. The recommendation is $2,919,000 
less than the budget request and $5,738,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The accompanying bill 
stipulates that none of the funding provided may be used for 
the position of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. In 
addition, the request to fund a new Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Innovative Finance is denied.
    The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer 
up to 5 percent of the funds from any office within the Office 
of the Secretary to another. The Committee recommendation also 
continues language that permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be 
credited to the Office of the Secretary for salaries and 
expenses.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level and the budget request:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                              2015 enacted      2016 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary...................................        $2,696,000        $2,734,000        $2,734,000
Office of the Deputy Secretary............................         1,011,000         1,025,000         1,025,000
Office of the General Counsel.............................        19,900,000        20,609,000        20,109,000
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy         9,800,000        11,796,000        10,141,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.        12,500,000        13,867,000        13,867,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs         2,500,000         2,546,000         2,546,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......        25,365,000        27,611,000        27,411,000
Office of Public Affairs..................................         2,000,000         2,029,000         2,029,000
Office of the Executive Secretariat.......................         1,714,000         1,769,000         1,769,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....         1,414,000  ................         1,434,000
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response..        10,600,000        10,793,000        10,793,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer...................        15,500,000        16,880,000        16,880,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Innovative Finance..  ................         2,000,000  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................       105,000,000    113,657,000\1\       110,738,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Difference due to rounding.

                   IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $2,734,000 for fiscal year 2016 
for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation 
is equal to the budget request and $38,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2015 enacted level.
    Electronic Cigarettes.--The Committee is concerned about 
the status of a final rule prohibiting the use of electronic 
cigarettes on aircraft, which the Secretary indicated would be 
published by the end of 2014. In order to provide certainty to 
passengers and crew and to better protect consumer health, the 
Committee directs the Department to finalize its proposed rule 
(Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0044) as quickly as possible.
    Given recent incidences of fires involving electronic 
cigarettes in checked baggage, the Committee is pleased that 
the Federal Aviation Administration has been working with the 
International Civil Aviation Organization and has issued a 
safety alert recommending that e-cigarettes and related devices 
not be allowed in checked luggage within the cargo hold of 
planes. However, the Committee remains concerned about the 
sufficiency of these measures. The Secretary is directed to 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
within 60 days of enactment of this act on the agency's 
progress, and on any additional measures that may be warranted 
or statutory authority that may be required to prevent the 
incidence of fires caused by electronic cigarettes.
    Mobile Wireless Devices.--The Committee remains concerned 
about the Department's delay in issuing a final rule on voice 
communication on commercial aircraft. On February 24, 2014, the 
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 passengers flying each day and 
challenging for the airlines. The Committee directs the 
Department to issue the final rule expeditiously and to ensure 
the rule takes into account the full impact of such 
communication on consumers and the commercial aviation 
industry.
    Outreach on Construction Jobs.--The Committee remains 
concerned about the high unemployment rate of the Nation's 
construction industry. Despite the efforts of the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy to increase communication between 
procurement officers and industry, the Committee believes that 
local contractors very often do not know about nor have the 
opportunity to compete for local construction projects funded 
in this act. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary to 
ensure that regional/district offices responsible for managing 
or overseeing construction projects ensure that local 
construction industry contractors are informed about 
procurement opportunities and the bidding process. Sharing this 
information is especially important for small businesses, 
minority-owned businesses, and women-owned businesses. The 
Committee requests a clear outreach plan from the Secretary no 
later than 90 days after enactment of this act. This plan 
should modernize traditional outreach methods and include best 
practices for grant recipients to reach a broader group of 
local contractors.
    Equipage loan guarantee.--Section 221 of the FAA 
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 proposed a loan guarantee 
program to equip aircraft with the avionics required to meet 
the mandate that all aircraft be equipped with ``ADS-B Out'' 
avionics by 2020. The Committee directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to work with stakeholders to evaluate how such a 
loan guarantee program can address the outstanding need for 
general aviation avionics upgrades required to meet the 2020 
deadline. In addition, the Secretary is directed to provide a 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
that outlines the policies, procedures, and organizational 
structure required to establish such a loan guarantee program 
no later than 180 days after enactment of this act.

                IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,025,000 for the Immediate 
Office of the Deputy Secretary, which is equal to the budget 
request and $14,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level.

                     OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $20,109,000 for expenses of the 
Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2016. The 
recommended funding level is $500,000 less than the budget 
request and $209,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level.

       OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $10,141,000 for the Office of the 
Under Secretary for Policy. The recommended funding level is 
$1,655,000 less than the budget request and $341,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The request to fund a new 
Office of Safety Oversight is denied. Instead, funding is 
provided directly to the operating modes to address critical 
safety needs.
    Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study.--The bill 
includes a provision that requires the Secretary to transmit to 
Congress the final Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits 
Study, as mandated by MAP-21, within 30 days of enactment of 
this act. The Office of the Under Secretary's allocation will 
be reduced by $100,000 each day the submission does not meet 
the deadline. The Committee is disappointed that the Department 
released the long overdue Technical Reports with the finding 
that there is minimal data to inform Congress as it pursues a 
new highway reauthorization. DOT's assertion that the limited 
amount of data available inhibits their efforts to conclusively 
evaluate the effects of changing allowable truck size and 
weight limits is particularly striking because these same 
reasons were made in the 2000 ``Comprehensive Truck Size and 
Weight'' report, 15 years ago. The Committee notes, however, 
that the Department's study covers a range of issues and that 
the amount and quality of the data varies across these topics. 
For example, within the Technical Reports, the Department does 
identify certain productivity and environmental benefits of 
increasing weight and size limits. The Committee expects all 
valid technical information to be taken into consideration 
prior to submitting the final report to Congress. The Committee 
also directs the Secretary to identify which elements of the 
research are valid based on data availability and the soundness 
of the study methodology as determined by the Transportation 
Research Board peer-review committee's recommendation.

       OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $13,867,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The recommended 
level is equal to the budget request and $1,367,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Committee 
recommendation includes funding to assist the Department in 
complying with the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. 
The bill includes language requiring quarterly status updates 
of all pending congressional reports and requires reports to 
Congress to be provided in electronic format.

       OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $2,546,000 for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The 
recommended level is equal to the budget request and $46,000 
more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.

          OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $27,411,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding 
level is $200,000 less than the budget request and $2,046,000 
more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.

                        OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $2,029,000 for the Office of 
Public Affairs, which is equal to the budget request and 
$29,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.

                         EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,769,000 for the Executive 
Secretariat. The recommendation is equal to the budget request 
and $55,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.

         OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,434,000 for the Office of Small 
and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, which is $20,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Committee 
recommendation is equal to the budget request; however, the 
Committee rejects the request to merge the Office with the 
Minority Business Outreach.

        OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $10,793,000 for the Office of 
Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response. The 
recommendation is equal to the budget request and $193,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.

                OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $16,880,000, which is equal to the 
budget request and $1,380,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level. The Committee encourages the OCIO to perform 
periodic automated inventories of software licenses in use 
across the Department. As such, the OCIO should compare those 
usage numbers to the Department's purchased licenses and seek 
to increase efficiency wherever it identifies discrepancies. 
The OCIO is to consider using this information to obtain 
Department-wide acquisitions as opposed to component-specific 
purchases of licenses. The OCIO shall report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations on the results of these 
reviews within 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
act.

                        RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $13,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      14,582,000
House allowance.........................................      11,386,000
Committee recommendation................................      13,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,000,000 
for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and 
Technology. This amount is $1,582,000 less than the budget 
request, and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The 
following table summarizes the Committee's recommendation in 
comparison to the budget request and the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                              2015 enacted      2016 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Administrative Expenses......................        $4,782,000        $6,364,000        $4,782,000
Research, Development and Technology Coordination.........           509,000           509,000           509,000
Alternative Energy Research and Development...............           499,000           499,000           499,000
Positioning, Navigation and Timing........................         1,610,000         1,610,000         1,610,000
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System.........         5,600,000         5,600,000         5,600,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................        13,000,000        14,582,000        13,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                  NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $500,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016\1\................................   1,250,000,000
House allowance.........................................     100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     500,000,000

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $500,000,000 for 
grants and credit assistance for investment in significant 
transportation projects, which is equal to the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level. The administration assumed that this program 
would be funded as a part of comprehensive legislation to 
reauthorize surface transportation programs, and classified the 
funding as mandatory spending. The Committee, however, does not 
expect the enactment of legislation that funds this program on 
the mandatory side of the budget, and therefore provides its 
funding recommendation in order to continue investment in these 
important transportation projects.
    Planning Activities.--The Committee recommendation allows 
up to $25,000,000 to be used for the planning, preparation or 
design of projects eligible for funding under this heading.
    Protections for Rural Areas.--The Committee continues to 
believe that our Federal infrastructure programs must benefit 
communities across the country. For this reason, the Committee 
continues to require the Secretary to award grants and credit 
assistance in a manner that ensures an equitable geographic 
distribution of funds and an appropriate balance in addressing 
the needs of urban and rural communities.
    Investing in infrastructure in rural America is extremely 
important for growing the economy, increasing exports and 
expanding markets. For this reason, the Committee also set 
aside no less than 30 percent of the program's funding for 
projects located in rural areas, and included specific 
provisions to match grant requirements with the needs of rural 
areas. Specifically, the Committee has lowered the minimum size 
of a grant awarded to a rural area and increased the Federal 
share of the total project cost.
    Port Infrastructure.--The Committee recognizes the 
important role that ports play in our Nation's transportation 
network. With the prediction that the volume of trade through 
our Nation's ports will substantially increase in the next 
decade, our Nation's infrastructure will be challenged to 
accommodate the increase in the movement of freight. Growth at 
our Nation's ports simultaneously increases demand on our 
transportation systems. Therefore, the Committee continues to 
identify inland ports as eligible recipients of this program 
and directs the Secretary to take into consideration, when 
selecting recipients, the annual tonnage, existing terminal 
capacity, and potential economic benefits of improvements or 
expansion of inland ports.

                      FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriations, 2015....................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................       5,000,000
House allowance.........................................       1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee is recommending $5,000,000 to complete the 
Secretary's Financial Management Capital initiative, which is 
equal to the budget request and the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level.

                       CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2015....................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................       8,000,000
House allowance.........................................       7,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $8,000,000 to support 
the Secretary's Cyber Security Initiative, which is equal to 
the budget request and $3,000,000 more than the fiscal year 
2015 enacted level.

                         OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2015....................................      $9,600,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................       9,678,000
House allowance.........................................       9,600,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,678,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a funding level of $9,678,000 for 
the Office of Civil Rights. The recommendation is equal to the 
budget request and $78,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level.

           TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2015....................................      $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      10,019,000
House allowance.........................................       5,976,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for Transportation 
Planning, Research, and Development, which is $4,019,000 less 
than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level.
    Transportation at Every Age.--The Committee is aware the 
Secretary has engaged in a number of initiatives and 
partnerships with States and communities to encourage and 
facilitate planning and development that take into account the 
needs of all transportation system users in order to create 
environments that are safe for people of all ages. The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue providing 
research on best practices, outreach and technical assistance 
to communities that seek to create or enhance their 
transportation systems so that the elderly have a realistic 
option to age in their homes with access to services and 
recreation and young people may safely walk or bike to school.

        INTERAGENCY INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING IMPROVEMENT CENTER

Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      $4,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................       4,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Department's Interagency Infrastructure Permitting 
Improvement Center [IIPIC] is responsible for improving 
performance of Federal permitting and review of infrastructure 
projects in order to reduce the aggregate time required for the 
Federal Government to make decisions in the permitting and 
review of infrastructure projects. This includes the 
management, improvement and expansion of the Administration's 
permitting dashboard, as well as implementation of other 
government-wide reforms. The IIPIC will develop and deploy 
information technology tools to track project schedules and 
metrics and improve the transparency and accountability of the 
permitting process.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the Interagency 
Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Center, which is equal to 
the budget request and $4,000,000 more than the fiscal year 
2015 enacted level.
    The Committee supports efforts to modernize the project 
review and permitting process to maximize efficiency through 
government wide coordination. The Administration's preliminary 
use of dashboard technologies and targeted interagency 
coordination on more than 50 projects has demonstrated the 
ability to accelerate project approval timelines. For example, 
the environmental review process for the Tappan Zee Bridge 
replacement was completed in 18 months versus the 3 to 5 years 
that would be expected under traditional practices. These 
efforts will support the expansion of the dashboard and 
increase the number of projects that can be expedited through 
implementation of these and other best practices. The resources 
provided in the bill should be used only for transportation 
projects, including supporting interagency coordination to make 
the review of transportation projects more efficient and 
effective, but the Committee supports the use of the dashboard 
and other process reforms for non-transportation projects 
contingent on resource contributions from other agencies that 
support such projects.
    The Committee directs the Department to transmit an annual 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
describing how the IIPIC has reduced aggregate time for Federal 
permitting and review of infrastructure projects government-
wide.

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2015........................................    $181,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................................
House allowance.........................................     181,500,000
Committee recommendation................................     190,039,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $190,039,000 on 
activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The 
recommended limit is $8,539,000 more than the limit enacted for 
fiscal year 2015. The Department requested that no limitation 
be included for fiscal year 2016.
    As in past years, the bill specifies that the limitation on 
the Working Capital Fund shall apply only to the Department and 
not to services provided for other entities. The Committee 
directs services to be provided on a competitive basis to the 
maximum extent possible.
    The Committee notes that the ``transparency paper'' 
included in the justifications for fiscal year 2016 provides 
essential information on total budgetary resources for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and the 
Office of the Chief Information Officer, including the balance 
of resources provided through the Working Capital Fund and 
direct appropriations. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
Department to update this ``transparency paper'' and include it 
in the budget justifications for fiscal year 2017.

               MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Limitation on
                                          Appropriations    guaranteed
                                                               loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2015....................        $925,000     $18,367,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................         933,000  ..............
House allowance.........................         933,000      18,367,000
Committee recommendation................         933,000      18,367,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $336,000 to 
cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $597,000 for 
administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
program. These recommended levels provide a total funding level 
of $933,000 for the Minority Business Resource Center. This 
total funding level is equal to the budget request and $8,000 
more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Committee 
also recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of 
$18,367,000, equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.

                       MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2015....................................      $3,099,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................       4,518,000
House allowance.........................................       4,518,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,084,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $3,084,000 for grants and 
contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year 
2016, which is $15,000 less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level. The request included an additional $1,434,000 from 
funding that has traditionally been provided as part of the 
Salaries and Expenses appropriation. However, the Committee 
rejects this approach, fully funding the request through a 
combination of the funds provided under the Minority Business 
Outreach heading plus $1,434,000 provided under Salaries and 
Expenses.

                        PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Appropriations     Mandatory         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2015.............................................    $155,000,000    $108,200,000    $263,200,000
Budget estimate, 2016...........................................     175,000,000     108,400,000     283,400,000
House allowance.................................................     155,000,000     108,400,000     263,400,000
Committee recommendation........................................     175,000,000     108,400,000     283,400,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends the appropriation of $175,000,000 
for the EAS program. This appropriation would be in addition to 
an estimated $108,400,000 of overflight fees collected by the 
FAA, allowing the Department to support a total program level 
for EAS of $283,400,000. The appropriation and the level of 
funding from overflight fees under the Committee's 
recommendation are both equal to the budget request. The total 
program level under the Committee's recommendation is 
$20,200,000 more than the total program level enacted for 
fiscal year 2015; the total program level enacted for that year 
was comprised of an appropriation of $155,000,000 plus 
$108,200,000 in overflight fees.
    Proximity to the Nearest Hub Airport.--The Committee 
continues to include a provision that prohibits the Department 
from entering into a new contract with an EAS community located 
less than 40 miles from the nearest hub airport before the 
Secretary has negotiated with the community over a local cost 
share.
    Aircraft Size Requirement.--The Committee continues to 
include a provision that removes the requirement for 15-
passenger seat aircraft. This requirement adds to the cost of 
the EAS program because the fleet of 15-passenger seat aircraft 
continues to age and grow more difficult for airlines to 
maintain. The Committee, however, expects that the Department 
will use this flexibility judiciously. The Department should 
use it for communities where historical passenger levels 
indicate that smaller aircraft would still accommodate the 
great majority of passengers, or for communities where viable 
proposals for service are not available. The Committee does not 
expect the Department to use this flexibility simply to lower 
costs if a community can show regular enplanement levels that 
would justify larger aircraft.
    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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Est. miles
                                            to nearest     Average     Annual subsidy    Passenger   Subsidy per
State            EAS communities            hub (S, M,  enplanements   rates at 6/1/13   totals at    passenger
                                              or L)        per day                        12/31/14    at 4/1/15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ALMuscle Shoals                                 60           4.4        $1,739,308        2,763         $629
  ARElDorado/Camden                              117          11.3         1,977,153        7,064          280
  ARHarrison                                      86          13.9         2,251,207        8,708          259
  ARHot Springs                                   51           7.9         1,637,012        4,965          330
  ARJonesboro                                     82          15.2         1,942,890        9,493          205
  AZKingman                                      121           1.3         1,635,180          787        2,078
  AZPage                                         282          12.4         2,472,028        7,767          318
  AZPrescott                                     102          12.3         2,094,325        7,726          271
  AZShow Low                                     154           5.9         1,672,000        3,701          452
  CACrescent City                                231          42.7         2,454,084       26,758           92
  CAEl Centro                                    101           7.5         1,943,751        4,698          414
  CAMerced                                        60           6.9         2,779,116        4,305          646
  CAVisalia                                       47           5.3         1,990,563        3,332          597
  COAlamosa                                      164          12.3         2,192,179        7,699          285
  COCortez                                       255          12.3         2,270,297        7,670          296
  COPueblo                                        36          14.1         1,737,732        8,815          197
  GAMacon                                         36           3.2         1,998,696        2,017          991
  IABurlington                                    74          20.7         1,917,566       12,984          148
  IAFort Dodge                                    91           n/a         3,715,953          978          n/a
  IAMason City                                   131           n/a         3,715,953        1,459          n/a
  IASioux City                                    88          77.6           611,434       48,591           13
  IAWaterloo                                      63          72.1           945,546       45,127           21
  ILDecatur                                      126          20.5         2,667,922       12,838          208
  ILMarion/Herrin                                123          31.5         2,104,616       19,698          107
  ILQuincy                                       111          31.4         1,956,856       19,670           99
  KSDodge City                                   150          10.0         2,339,131        6,253          374
  KSGarden City                                  202          81.9         1,445,172       51,281           28
  KSGreat Bend                                   114           n/a         1,445,172          452          n/a
  KSHays                                         166          18.0         2,253,132       11,261          200
  KSLiberal/Guymon                               138          10.8         2,236,180        6,791          329
  KSSalina                                        97           5.9         1,490,479        3,718          401
  KYOwensboro                                    105          12.0         1,529,913        7,502          204
  KYPaducah                                      146          66.4         2,034,160       41,555           49
  MDHagerstown                                    78           4.9         1,785,638        3,080          580
  MEAugusta/Waterville                            58          16.9         1,818,106       10,575          172
  MEBar Harbor                                   157          15.2         1,631,223        9,543          171
  MEPresque Isle/Houlton                         274          38.7         4,710,683       24,234          194
  MERockland                                      76          21.5         1,890,918       13,429          141
  MIAlpena                                       174          39.7         2,168,995       24,852           87
  MIEscanaba                                     227          54.6         3,507,011       34,173          103
  MIHancock/Houghton                             321          73.4           690,976       45,962           15
  MIIron Mountain/Kingsford                      229          35.5         2,970,122       22,198          134
  MIIronwood/Ashland                             213           8.0         3,563,394        4,993          714
  MIManistee/Ludington                           233          12.3         2,328,104        7,708          302
  MIMuskegon                                      49          45.1         1,389,952       28,208           49
  MIPellston                                     213          89.4         1,077,413       55,958           19
  MISault Ste. Marie                             347          67.0         1,765,393       41,960           42
  MNBemidji                                      128          71.2         1,118,050       44,591           25
  MNBrainerd                                     123          53.8         1,671,602       33,682           50
  MNChisholm/Hibbing                             199          33.1         2,535,502       20,709          122
  MNInternational Falls                          298          45.8         2,197,037       28,681           77
  MNThief River Falls                            305           n/a         2,428,750          725          n/a
  MOCape Girardeau/Sikeston                      127          19.7         1,627,966       12,313          132
  MOFort Leonard Wood                            136          25.3         2,829,158       15,847          179
  MOJoplin                                       167          82.8           519,201       51,802           10
  MOKirksville                                   137          17.5         1,649,248       10,983          150
  MSGreenville                                   124           4.9         1,483,080        3,054          486
  MSLaurel/Hattiesburg                            85          13.8         3,910,654        8,633          453
  MSMeridian                                      84          20.9         3,910,654       13,099          299
  MSTupelo                                        94          15.0         2,506,436        9,396          267
  MTButte                                         75          91.9           735,956       57,500           13
  MTGlasgow                                      285          12.2         2,046,800        7,629          268
  MTGlendive                                     223           7.9         1,944,467        4,935          394
  MTHavre                                        230           7.6         2,036,254        4,767          427
  MTSidney                                       272          35.9         3,777,579       22,484          168
  MTWest Yellowstone                              89          47.3           491,205       11,544           43
  MTWolf Point                                   293          12.4         2,145,326        7,762          276
  NDDevils Lake                                  159           n/a         3,224,917        5,123          n/a
  NDJamestown                                     92           n/a         3,126,564        8,326          n/a
  NEAlliance                                     233           1.6         1,309,865        1,016          n/a
  NEChadron                                      290           2.5         1,309,865        1,534          n/a
  NEGrand Island                                 138          76.1         1,837,021       47,648           39
  NEKearney                                      181          27.0         2,993,938       16,920          177
  NEMcCook                                       256           n/a         2,254,017          865          n/a
  NENorth Platte                                 255          13.3         2,818,163        8,326          338
  NEScottsbluff                                  192          14.1         2,443,523        8,817          277
  NHLebanon/White River Jct.                      74          33.4         2,972,718       20,905          142
  NMCarlsbad                                     149           5.7         1,397,081        3,537          395
  NMClovis                                       102           n/a         3,179,857        3,832          n/a
  NMSilver City/Hurley/Deming                    134           3.7         3,377,495        2,318          n/a
  NYJamestown                                     76          10.1         2,045,481        6,293          325
  NYMassena                                      138          14.4         2,608,773        9,035          289
  NYOgdensburg                                   105          17.2         2,419,820       10,754          225
  NYPlattsburgh                                   82          26.8         2,714,074       16,793          162
  NYSaranac Lake/Lake Placid                     132          16.0         1,832,064       10,039          182
  NYWatertown                                     54          61.6         3,356,349       38,551           87
  ORPendleton                                    185          12.8         1,834,708        8,020          229
  PAAltoona                                      112          10.4         2,346,168        6,518          360
  PABradford                                      77           5.8         2,045,826        3,647          561
  PADuBois                                       112          13.6         2,285,539        8,516          268
  PAFranklin/Oil City                             85           3.3         1,442,788        2,062          700
  PAJohnstown                                     84          14.9         2,438,254        9,350          261
  PALancaster                                     28           6.5         2,504,174        4,045          619
  SDAberdeen                                     176          83.7         1,043,719       52,383           20
  SDHuron                                        121           3.2         2,552,000        1,996          n/a
  SDWatertown                                    102           6.2         2,847,284        3,857          738
  TNJackson                                       86           5.3         1,584,275        3,340          474
  TXVictoria                                      93           7.0         2,288,152        4,381          522
  UTCedar City                                   179          41.7         2,317,439       26,121           89
  UTMoab                                         256          21.0         2,303,347       13,170          175
  UTVernal                                       150          12.9         1,415,696        8,077          175
  VAStaunton                                     113          30.0         1,980,922       18,776          106
  VTRutland                                       69          17.3         1,360,481       10,806          126
  WIEau Claire                                    92          58.8         1,546,536       36,809           42
  WIRhinelander                                  190          69.8         2,050,889       43,714           47
  WVBeckley                                      168          10.2         2,696,888        6,369          423
  WVClarksburg/Fairmont                           96          17.0         2,310,252       10,646          217
  WVGreenbrier/W.Sulphur Sps                     162          25.3         3,582,194       15,837          226
  WVMorgantown                                    75          29.0         2,342,074       18,149          129
  WVParkersburg/Marietta                         110          17.2         3,505,074       10,766          326
  WYCody                                         106         101.8         1,380,779       63,709           22
  WYLaramie                                      145          38.8         2,078,554       24,300           86
  WYWorland                                      161           3.6         2,327,987        2,277          n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 SAFE TRANSPORTATION OF ENERGY PRODUCTS

Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      $5,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Safe Transportation of Energy Products program would 
provide oversight and coordination of multi-modal prevention 
and response activities associated with the safe transportation 
of energy products. It would ensure that the Pipeline and 
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Federal Railroad 
Administration, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration share best practices, provide consistent 
strategic direction across the country, keep each other 
informed of the latest developments, and coordinate safety 
practices throughout the transportation process.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee does not recommend providing a new 
appropriation for the Office of the Secretary to support the 
transportation of energy products as proposed in the budget 
request. The Committee has instead recommended funding through 
the regular appropriations to the agencies that are directly 
responsible for ensuring the safe transportation of energy 
products, such as the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Funding provided 
directly to the agencies will assist the Secretary in providing 
a comprehensive prevention, mitigation, and response safety 
strategy for the shipment of energy products.

                          DATA ACT COMPLIANCE

Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      $3,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The DATA Act Compliance program would implement Government-
wide data standards for financial data to provide consistent, 
reliable, and searchable spending data for easy public 
consumption, as required by the Digital Accountability and 
Transparency Act. The program would assess the level of system 
modifications necessary to capture the information required by 
the DATA Act as well as review current business processes/
certifications and establish a consistent, repeatable process 
needed to improve financial data quality and accuracy.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee does not recommend providing a new 
appropriation for a DATA Act Compliance program as proposed in 
the budget request. Instead, the Committee has provided 
additional funding to the Department's Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Budget and Programs to assist with compliance 
with the DATA Act.

                         U.S. DIGITAL SERVICES

Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      $9,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The U.S. Digital Services program would focus on 
transforming the Department's digital services that have the 
greatest impact on citizens and businesses. A team of digital 
service experts would apply private sector best practices in 
the disciplines of design, software engineering, and product 
management to the Department's most important services. The 
team would focus on accelerating current programs/projects; 
enhancing partnerships and information sharing with other 
agencies; building or improving external and internal facing 
services; and improving stakeholder and data management tools.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

  ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

    Section 101 prohibits the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation from obligating funds originally provided to a 
modal administration in order to approve assessments or 
reimbursable agreements, unless the Department follows the 
regular process for the reprogramming of funds, including 
congressional notification.
    Section 102 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation or 
his designee to engage in activities with States and State 
legislatures to consider proposals related to the reduction of 
motorcycle fatalities.
    Section 103 allows the Department of Transportation to make 
use of the Working Capital Fund in providing transit benefits 
to Federal employees.
    Section 104 places simple administrative requirements on 
the Department of Transportation's Credit Council. These 
requirements include posting a schedule of meetings on the DOT 
Web site, posting the meeting agendas on the Web site, and 
recording the minutes of each meeting.
    Section 105 limits the Department of Transportation's 
ability to finalize or implement certain sections of the 
proposed regulation issued in the Federal Register on May 23, 
2014, relating to Transparency of Airline Ancillary Fees and 
Other Consumer Protection Issues.

                    Federal Aviation Administration


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The total recommended funding level for the FAA for fiscal 
year 2016 amounts to $16,011,143,000 including new budget 
authority and a limitation on the obligation of contract 
authority. This funding level is $175,143,000 more than the 
budget request and $293,693,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for fiscal year 2016 in comparison to the 
budget request, the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and the 
House allowance:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fiscal year--
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------     Committee
                                         2015 enacted      2016 estimate     House allowance     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations..........................     $9,740,700,000     $9,915,000,000     $9,844,700,000     $9,897,818,000
Facilities and equipment............      2,600,000,000      2,855,000,000      2,503,000,000      2,600,000,000
Research, engineering, and                  156,750,000        166,000,000        156,750,000        163,325,000
 development........................
Grants-in-aid to airports                 3,350,000,000      2,900,000,000      3,350,000,000      3,350,000,000
 (obligation limitation)............
Rescissions.........................        260,000,000  .................  .................  .................
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................     15,717,450,000     15,836,000,000     15,854,450,000     16,011,143,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2015....................................  $9,740,700,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................   9,915,000,000
House allowance.........................................   9,844,700,000
Committee recommendation................................   9,897,818,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $9,897,818,000 for FAA 
Operations. This funding level is $17,182,000 less than the 
budget request, and $157,118,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level. The Committee recommendation derives 
$8,180,000,000 of the appropriation from the Airport and Airway 
Trust Fund. The balance of the appropriation will be drawn from 
the General Fund of the Treasury.
    As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the event 
resources are insufficient to operate a safe and effective air 
traffic control system.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and fiscal 
year 2015 enacted level:

                                                 FAA OPERATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2015 enacted      2016 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic organization...............................     $7,396,654,000     $7,505,293,000     $7,505,293,000
Aviation safety........................................      1,218,458,000      1,258,411,000      1,258,411,000
Commercial space transportation........................         16,605,000         18,114,000         17,425,000
Finance and Management.................................        756,047,000        764,969,000        748,969,000
NextGen Operations and Planning........................         60,089,000         60,582,000         60,089,000
Security and hazardous materials safety................      88,672,000\1\        100,880,000        100,880,000
Staff offices..........................................     204,175,000\1\        206,751,000        206,751,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................      9,740,700,000      9,915,000,000      9,897,818,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In the 2015 Consolidated Appropriations Act, funding for security and hazardous materials safety was provided
  within staff offices for a total of $292,847,000.

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reform.--The 
authorization for FAA's programs and activities is set to 
expire on September 30, 2015, and a key issue in the 
reauthorization debate is whether to reform the structure of 
the FAA. It has been argued that the Air Traffic Organization 
[ATO] should be taken out of the FAA and made exempt from the 
appropriations process so that it can act independently and 
exert control over its budgetary resources. Some have even 
suggested that other lines of business--such as Aviation 
Safety--should follow ATO out of the agency in order to 
maintain the level of coordination that is crucial to 
implementing NextGen.
    The Committee, however, cannot agree that the public is 
served by exempting any part of the FAA from annual 
congressional oversight. The appropriations process provides 
the annual oversight of agency resources that is necessary to 
ensure accountability on program performance and a sustained 
focus on aviation safety. Congressional oversight also ensures 
that the FAA maintains a system that works across the aviation 
industry, including general aviation, small and rural 
communities as well as commercial airlines and large 
metropolitan cities.
    The Committee would therefore oppose legislation to put the 
FAA or parts of the FAA on funding autopilot. The Committee 
believes that splintering the FAA and exempting certain lines 
of business from the appropriations process would limit 
congressional oversight, reduce air traffic services for small 
communities, restrict opportunities for public input, and 
negatively impact the cost of air traffic for the consumer.
    Hiring Air Traffic Controllers.--Just over a year ago, the 
FAA made important reforms to the way it hires air traffic 
controllers. However, as the Committee noted at the time, the 
FAA failed to reach out to all of its stakeholder groups--
including training programs--to inform its decisions. The 
Committee therefore reiterates its expectation that the FAA 
will invite the input of all of its stakeholders when 
considering significant changes to the hiring process for air 
traffic controllers. In addition, the Committee encourages the 
FAA to consider the value of such training programs and the 
role they can play in building the next workforce of aviation 
professionals.
    Contract Towers.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$154,400,000 for the contract tower program, including the 
cost-share contract towers. This total funding level is 
sufficient to cover all towers that will be operating during 
fiscal year 2016. Current law limits contributions in the 
contract tower cost share program to 20 percent of total costs.
    Aircraft Certification Process Review and Reform.--The FAA 
must provide an aircraft certification system that effectively 
and efficiently processes new aviation products and 
technologies. This system must include a fuller utilization of 
organizational designation authorization, more effective safety 
oversight, better workforce training, and meaningful 
performance metrics.
    Achieving these goals must be one of the FAA's highest 
priorities, and the Committee expects the FAA to document its 
progress. This past year, the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations directed the FAA to submit a report on measures 
of effectiveness that the agency is using as it expands the use 
of delegated authority and a risk-based, systems safety 
approach to its oversight. The FAA was directed to include in 
this report its progress in relying more fully on delegated 
authorities and toward a systems safety approach; how regularly 
the FAA will collect data and how it will be used to improve 
FAA's process over time; the extent to which FAA has modified 
its personnel expectations and its training course content to 
communicate changes to field offices; and the extent to which 
Advisory and Rulemaking Committee members were consulted in 
drafting the measures of effectiveness. The FAA's deadline, 
February 14, has since passed, and the Committee expects the 
FAA to submit the report immediately. In addition, the 
Committee directs the FAA to provide a progress report to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by January 2016.
    The Small Airplane Revitalization Act requires that the FAA 
improve the certification process for small airplanes by 
modernizing part 23 airworthiness regulations, which will 
enhance safety and reduce cost. FAA, DOT and the Office of 
Management and Budget must focus on a coordinated and 
concurrent review process to ensure a notice of proposed 
rulemaking is issued by this summer. A failure to act would 
cede international leadership to other regulatory authorities. 
Using resources provided, the FAA must promote and defend U.S. 
certification processes and type certificates in the 
international arena. This is increasingly important to the 
success of U.S. aeronautical products in the competitive 
international marketplace.
    Safety, Security and Infrastructure--Internet Protocol.--
The fire at the Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center on 
September 26, 2014, has highlighted the need to improve the 
resiliency of the FAA's telecommunications infrastructure and 
increase the flexibility of its robust network to rapidly 
reroute or reconfigure communications during emergencies. The 
Committee is fully supportive of the FAA's commitment to 
achieving its goal of restoring operations immediately. The 
funding provided will allow the FAA to implement the results of 
the FAA review of security and emergency response times at air 
traffic control facilities, which was conducted following the 
fire incident. A pivotal requirement will be to replace point-
to-point connections with Internet Protocol [IP] based systems 
to enable network flexibility. Most NextGen programs are IP-
enabled, and the Committee commends the FAA for now requiring 
IP interfaces in all final investment decisions. Nevertheless, 
most legacy systems--including aeronautical navigation aids and 
weather instruments--as well as the network itself are point-
to-point interfaces and are not currently planned for 
conversion or replacement through NextGen. The October 2014 
MITRE report, NextGen Independent Assessment and 
Recommendations, advised that the ``FAA should aggressively 
move to eliminate legacy point-to-point data telecommunications 
and information interfaces.'' In its update to the Committee, 
the FAA has articulated a three-pronged strategy to achieve an 
IP-based infrastructure. The Committee appreciates the 
development of an overall plan and would like to see additional 
information in conjunction with the fiscal year 2017 budget 
submission. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to submit 
a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
that provides a detailed plan for upgrading, replacing, or 
converting both the network infrastructure and legacy 
interfaces to IP, as well as specific cost and schedule 
estimates. The Committee also directs the FAA to develop a 
complete inventory, and to conduct end-to-end testing in an IP 
environment of FAA's Telecommunications Infrastructure NAS 
Network components.
    Aeronautical Navigation Products.--The Committee remains 
concerned about Aeronautical Navigation Products' [AeroNav] 
plans to impose a per person charge and erect a digital 
copyright on digital products produced by the FAA for the 
public benefit. The FAA has previously made these products 
available for download from its Web site without charge. The 
Committee is concerned that the proposed scheme will be used to 
support the declining paper chart services by charging those 
that are moving to a digital format. In contrast to AeroNav's 
efforts, Executive Order 13642 was issued on May 14, 2013, to 
make government data available to foster entrepreneurship and 
innovation. This order builds on another order issued in 2012 
to open up government systems with public interfaces for 
commercial application providers. With these concerns in mind, 
the Committee continues to include bill language that prohibits 
AeroNav from implementing new charges on AeroNav products until 
the FAA provides the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations a report that describes: (1) the estimated cost 
of producing only its digital products, on a product-by-product 
basis (for example, delineating costs for electronic navigation 
charts and vector charts separately), for use on computers, 
tablets, and other displays; (2) the cost of producing both 
digital products and paper products, on a product-by-product 
basis; (3) safety and operational benefits of using digital 
products; and (4) how AeroNav's actions conflict with the 
direction in Executive Order 13642 to support open data for 
entrepreneurship, innovation, and scientific discovery.
    FAA Public Hearing.--The Committee remains concerned with 
the proposed modifications to the Condor 1 and Condor 2 
military operating areas and encourages FAA to continue working 
with its partner agencies by holding a public hearing with 
representatives from the relevant Federal agencies in western 
Maine upon completion of the Air National Guard's environmental 
impact statement and the record of decision. The Committee 
recognizes that the Air National Guard, as the lead agency 
under the NEPA process, has sought to meet the minimum legal 
requirements for public participation and comment. However, the 
Committee remains troubled with how the authorization of low-
altitude military training in the proposed airspace would 
affect areas that significantly contribute to the local economy 
and areas that are culturally and environmentally sensitive. 
Furthermore, the Committee notes the FAA is the only Federal 
agency that can modify special airspace and that the FAA may 
adopt the Air National Guard's EIS in whole, or in part, once 
the Final EIS has been issued. In addition, the Committee 
directs the FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations prior to the issuance of a record of decision 
regarding the modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 
military operations areas that includes a summary of any public 
meeting and hearing and a list of the comments, questions, and 
responses presented at these meetings and hearings.
    Unmanned Aerial Systems.--Section 333 of the FAA 
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 authorized the FAA to 
approve, where appropriate and consistent with criteria 
specified in the law, the operation of certain unmanned 
aircraft systems before the completion of certain rules and 
planning requirements specified in the law. The Committee 
encourages the FAA to consider whether UAS test sites may be 
appropriate in assisting the Secretary in making determinations 
under section 333. The Committee also urges the FAA to 
communicate clearly with the UAS industry regarding its 
priorities for section 333 consideration.
    Unmanned Aerial Systems--Enforcement.--The Committee 
directs the FAA to increase its enforcement efforts to deter 
the careless or reckless operation of unmanned aerial vehicles 
in proximity to manned aircraft and airports.
    Addressing Invasive Species.--The aviation system is a way 
that invasive species spread, both domestically and 
internationally. The Committee expects the FAA to take the 
appropriate steps to make the needed progress in addressing 
invasive species. Under Executive Order 13112, Federal agencies 
are directed to prevent the introduction of invasive species 
and to provide for their control and minimize the economic, 
ecological, and human health impacts caused by invasive 
species. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to develop a 
comprehensive strategic plan that addresses the requirements of 
Executive Order 13112, including the prevention of invasive 
species, the control of such populations, and ways to minimize 
their economic, ecological, and human health impacts.
    Commercial Space Launches.--The number of State spaceports 
has grown rapidly over the last decade, and is expected to 
continue growing over the next several years. Current FAA 
regulations require launch providers to obtain insurance that 
covers property damage in the event of an accident, but this 
requirement does not address the property of State and local 
governments. The Committee therefore encourages the FAA to 
consider either an update to those regulations or other policy 
options that would allow State governments--particularly State 
developments located at Federal ranges--to be compensated for 
losses incurred during a commercial launch.

                        FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2015....................................  $2,600,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................   2,855,000,000
House allowance.........................................   2,503,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,600,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,600,000,000 
for the Facilities and Equipment account of the FAA. The 
recommended level is $255,000,000 less than the budget request 
and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
    Capital Investment Plan.--In fiscal year 2015, the 
Committee included a provision that lowered the appropriation 
for FAA's facilities and equipment by $100,000 for each day the 
agency was late in submitting its capital investment plan to 
Congress. The Committee continues this provision and expects 
the FAA to provide the plan by the deadline.
    Budget Activities Format.--The Committee directs that the 
fiscal year 2017 budget request for the Facilities and 
Equipment account conform to the same organizational structure 
of budget activities as displayed below.
    The following table shows the Committee's recommended 
distribution of funds for each of the budget activities funded 
by this appropriation and by resources provided under Grants-
in-Aid to Airports:

                                            FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2015 enacted      2016 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 1--Engineering, Development, Test and
 Evaluation:
    Advanced technology development and prototyping....        $29,900,000        $21,300,000        $20,000,000
    NAS improvement of system support laboratory.......          1,000,000          1,000,000          1,000,000
    William J. Hughes Technical Center facilities......         12,049,000         19,050,000         12,049,000
    William J. Hughes Technical Center infrastructure           12,200,000         12,200,000         12,200,000
     sustainment.......................................
    NextGen--Separation management.....................         31,500,000         26,500,000         31,500,000
    NextGen--Improved surface/TFDM.....................         38,808,000         17,000,000         17,000,000
    NextGen--On demand NAS.............................          6,000,000         11,000,000          8,000,000
    NextGen--Environment...............................          5,500,000          1,000,000          1,000,000
    NextGen--Improved multiple runway operations.......          5,500,000          8,000,000          7,000,000
    NextGen--NAS infrastructure........................         14,480,000         11,000,000          4,000,000
    NextGen--Support...................................         13,000,000         10,000,000         10,000,000
    NextGen--Performance based navigation and metroplex         26,500,000         13,000,000         13,000,000
 
Activity 2--Air Traffic Control Facilities and
 Equipment:
 
a. En Route Programs:
    En route automation modernization [ERAM]--system            45,200,000         79,400,000         75,000,000
     enhancements and tech refresh.....................
    En route communications gateway [ECG]..............          6,600,000          2,650,000          2,650,000
    Next generation weather radar [NEXRAD]--provide....          7,100,000          6,500,000          6,500,000
    ARTCC building improvements/plant improvements.....         59,000,000         74,200,000         50,000,000
    Air traffic management [ATM].......................          5,729,000         13,700,000         13,700,000
    Air/ground communications infrastructure...........          3,900,000          9,750,000         11,750,000
    Air traffic control en route radar facilities                5,100,000          5,810,000          5,810,000
     improvements......................................
    Voice switching and control system [VSCS]..........         13,800,000          9,900,000          9,900,000
    Oceanic automation system..........................          3,508,000         20,000,000         10,000,000
    Next generation very high frequency air/ground comm         40,000,000         43,600,000         43,000,000
     [NEXCOM]..........................................
    Systemwide information management..................         60,261,000         37,400,000         37,400,000
    ADS-B NAS-wide implementation......................        254,700,000         45,200,000        184,600,000
    Windshear detection service........................          4,300,000          5,200,000          4,300,000
    Collaborative air traffic management technologies           13,491,000          9,800,000          9,800,000
     WP2 & WP3.........................................
    Time based flow management.........................         21,000,000         42,600,000         38,000,000
    ATC beacon interrogator [ATCBI]--sustainment.......  .................          1,000,000          1,000,000
    NextGen weather processors.........................         23,320,000          7,000,000          7,000,000
    Airborne collision avoidance system X [ACASX]......         12,000,000         10,800,000         10,800,000
    Data communications in support of NextGen..........        150,340,000        234,900,000        234,900,000
 
b. Terminal Programs:
    Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X [ASDE-          5,436,000         13,500,000          8,200,000
     X]................................................
    Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR]--provide.....          1,900,000          4,900,000          1,900,000
    Standard terminal automation replacement system             50,700,000         81,100,000         81,100,000
     [STARS] (TAMR Phase 1)............................
    Terminal automation modernization/replacement              146,150,000        159,350,000        159,350,000
     program (TAMR Phase 3)............................
    Terminal automation program........................          1,600,000          7,700,000          3,000,000
    Terminal air traffic control facilities--replace...         52,600,000         45,500,000         45,500,000
    ATCT/Terminal radar approach control [TRACON]               45,040,000         58,990,000         45,040,000
     facilities--improve...............................
    Terminal voice switch replacement [TVSR]...........          2,000,000          6,000,000          2,000,000
    NAS facilities OSHA and environmental standards             40,000,000         39,600,000         39,600,000
     compliance........................................
    Airport surveillance radar [ASR-9].................         13,600,000          3,800,000          3,800,000
    Terminal digital radar [ASR-11] tech refresh and            21,100,000          9,900,000          9,900,000
     mobile airport surveillance radar [MASR]..........
    Runway status lights...............................         41,710,000         24,170,000         24,170,000
    National airspace system voice system [NVS]........         20,550,000         53,550,000         53,500,000
    Integrated display system [IDS]....................         16,917,000         23,300,000         16,900,000
    Remote monitoring and logging system [RMLS]........          3,930,000          4,700,000          3,930,000
    Mode S service life extension program [SLEP].......          8,100,000         16,300,000         16,300,000
    Surveillance interface modernization...............          4,000,000         23,000,000         15,000,000
    Voice recorder replacement program [VRRP]..........          1,000,000          3,000,000          1,000,000
    Integrated terminal weather system [ITWS]..........          4,400,000          5,400,000          4,400,000
    Flight and Interfacility ATC Data Interface          .................          9,000,000          9,000,000
     Modernization.....................................
 
c. Flight Service Programs:
    Aviation surface observation system [ASOS].........          8,000,000          8,000,000          8,000,000
    Future flight service program......................          1,000,000          3,000,000          3,000,000
    Alaska flight service facility modernization                 2,800,000          2,650,000          2,650,000
     [AFSFM]...........................................
    Weather camera program.............................            200,000          1,000,000            200,000
 
d. Landing and Navigational Aids Program:
    VHF Omnidirectional radio range [VOR] with distance          8,300,000          4,500,000          4,500,000
     measuring equipment [DME].........................
    Instrument landing system [ILS]--establish.........          7,000,000          7,000,000          7,000,000
    Wide area augmentation system [WAAS] for GPS.......         98,600,000         80,600,000         91,850,000
    Runway visual range [RVR] and enhanced low                   7,500,000          6,000,000          6,000,000
     visibility operations [ELVO]......................
    Approach lighting system improvement program                 3,000,000          3,000,000          3,000,000
     [ALSIP]...........................................
    Distance measuring equipment [DME].................          3,000,000          3,000,000          3,000,000
    Visual NAVAIDS--establish/expand...................          2,000,000          2,000,000          2,000,000
    Instrument flight procedures automation [IFPA].....          2,400,000          3,371,000          2,400,000
    Navigation and landing aids--service life extension          3,000,000          3,000,000          3,000,000
     program [SLEP]....................................
    VASI Replacement--replace with precision approach            5,000,000          5,000,000          5,000,000
     path indicator....................................
    GPS Civil requirements.............................         10,000,000         27,000,000         10,000,000
    Runway safety areas--navigational mitigation.......         35,000,000         30,000,000         30,000,000
 
e. Other ATC Facilities Programs:
    Fuel storage tank replacement and management.......         14,500,000         18,700,000         10,000,000
    Unstaffed infrastructure sustainment...............         30,300,000         39,640,000         30,000,000
    Aircraft related equipment program.................          9,000,000          9,000,000          5,000,000
    Airport cable loop systems--sustained support......          5,000,000         12,000,000          5,000,000
    Alaskan satellite telecommunications infrastructure         11,400,000         12,500,000         10,000,000
     [ASTI]............................................
    Facilities decommissioning.........................          5,700,000          6,000,000          5,700,000
    Electrical power systems--sustain/support..........         82,701,000        124,970,000         82,700,000
    FAA Employee housing and life safety shelter system  .................          2,500,000          2,500,000
     service...........................................
    Energy management and compliance [EMC].............          1,000,000          2,000,000          2,000,000
    Child Care Center Sustainment......................  .................          1,600,000          1,600,000
    FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure..............  .................          1,000,000          1,000,000
 
Activity 3--Nonair Traffic Control Facilities and
 Equipment:
 
a. Support Equipment:
    Hazardous materials management.....................         22,000,000         26,400,000         20,000,000
    Aviation safety analysis system [ASAS].............         11,900,000         20,200,000         18,000,000
    Logistics support systems and facilities [LSSF]....          8,000,000          4,000,000          4,000,000
    National airspace [NAS] recovery communications             12,000,000         12,000,000         12,000,000
     [RCOM]............................................
    Facility security risk management..................         14,300,000         15,000,000         14,300,000
    Information security...............................         12,000,000         12,000,000         12,000,000
    System approach for safety oversight [SASO]........         22,500,000         18,900,000         18,900,000
    Aviation safety knowledge management environment            10,200,000          7,500,000          7,500,000
     [ASKME]...........................................
    Aerospace medical equipment needs [AMEN]...........  .................          2,500,000          1,500,000
    System safety management portfolio.................         18,700,000         17,000,000         17,000,000
    National test equipment program....................          2,000,000          4,000,000          2,000,000
    Mobile assets management program...................          4,000,000          4,800,000          4,000,000
    Aerospace medicine safety information systems                3,000,000          3,000,000          3,000,000
     [AMSIS]...........................................
    Tower simulation system [TSS] tech refresh.........          3,000,000          7,000,000          3,000,000
 
b. Training, Equipment and Facilities:
    Aeronautical center infrastructure modernization...         13,180,000         15,200,000         12,000,000
    Distance learning..................................          1,500,000          1,500,000          1,000,000
 
Activity 4--Facilities and Equipment Mission Support:
 
a. System Support and Services:
    System engineering and development support.........         34,504,000         35,000,000         34,504,000
    Program support leases.............................         43,200,000         46,700,000         43,197,000
    Logistics support services [LSS]...................         11,500,000         11,000,000         10,000,000
    Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center leases...........         18,350,000         18,800,000         18,350,000
    Transition engineering support.....................         16,596,000         19,200,000         19,200,000
    Technical support services contract [TSSC].........         23,000,000         23,000,000         23,000,000
    Resource tracking program [RTP]....................          4,000,000          4,000,000          4,000,000
    Center for Advanced Aviation System Development             60,000,000         60,000,000         50,000,000
     [CAASD]...........................................
    Aeronautical information management program........         12,650,000          5,000,000          5,000,000
    Cross agency NextGen management....................          2,000,000          3,000,000          2,000,000
 
Activity 5--Personnel and Related Expenses.............        460,000,000        470,049,000        467,000,000
 
Activity 6--Sustain ADS-B services and Wide Areas        .................        166,000,000  .................
 Augmentation Services [WAAS] GEOs.....................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total resources provided under this appropria-       2,600,000,000      2,855,000,000      2,600,000,000
         tion..........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADS-B NAS Wide Implementation.--ADS-B uses GPS signals to 
transmit an aircraft's location to receivers installed on the 
ground throughout the United States. The ground receivers 
transmit that information to air traffic controller screens and 
flight deck displays on any aircraft equipped with the 
appropriate avionics. Using ADS-B will improve the safety and 
efficiency of the national airspace, and it is a foundational 
program of the FAA's NextGen effort to modernize our air 
traffic control system. The Committee recommendation therefore 
includes $184,600,000 for the implementation of ADS-B across 
the national airspace.
    The Committee's recommendation is equal to the budget 
request, which included $45,200,000 in Activity 2 and another 
$139,400,000 in a new Activity for leases and subscription 
costs. The recommendation is also $70,100,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Committee recommendation 
rejects the request to create a new Activity 6 and instead 
provides ADS-B resources for both activities within Activity 2.
    NextGen-Separation Management Portfolio.--The Committee 
recommends $31,500,000 for NextGen-Separation Management 
Portfolio, an increase of $5,000,000 above the budget request. 
Of this amount, the Committee recommendation specifically 
includes $15,000,000 to continue advancement of space-based 
ADS-B. The Committee supports this technology as a means to 
enhance safety and increase capacity. The additional funding is 
necessary to ensure that the FAA will be able to keep pace with 
neighboring air navigation service providers in adjacent 
oceanic airspace who plan to use space-based ADS-B in 2018 to 
track aircraft and offer reduced separation services over the 
oceans. The Committee expects the agency to accelerate its 
ability to implement space-based ADS-B by 2018 and report on 
its progress to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this act.
    Terminal Flight Data Manager [TFDM].--The Committee 
supports the FAA's efforts to accelerate NextGen benefits in 
the air traffic control tower and surface movement operating 
domains through the TFDM program. The FAA should work 
expeditiously to deploy control tower and surface TFDM 
enhancements at the Nation's busiest airports.
    Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS].--WAAS uses a single 
frequency to calculate GPS corrections that are broadcast to 
the WAAS user. The FAA is planning to use its funds for 
engineering services for WAAS dual frequency algorithms 
definition, modeling, and prototyping with the FAA systems 
engineering team, consultants, and the WAAS vendor. The 
Committee supports this strategy because it ensures that the 
FAA has access to those with expertise in original WAAS 
algorithms development who understand the end-to-end system 
impacts for algorithm changes, and who have a strong desire to 
solve this problem quickly. The Committee directs the FAA to 
provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with 
an update on its progress within 180 days of enactment of this 
act.
    Surveillance Radar Strategy.--The Committee funds the 
request to extend the usability of its surveillance radar 
infrastructure and agrees with the technology refresh plans. 
When developing the NextGen Surveillance and Weather Radar 
Capability acquisition strategy, the Committee directs the FAA 
to continue working closely with other Departments and 
Agencies, to include the Department of Defense, Department of 
Homeland Security, and National Weather Service, at a minimum. 
The Committee believes that a joint surveillance strategy 
represents the most effective use of taxpayer funds.
    Air to Ground Communication.--The Committee recognizes that 
the establishment of new military airspace creates new 
communications requirements for civilian aircraft and also 
believes that civilian aircraft operating near newly 
established military airspace should have the ability to 
communicate directly with local air traffic controllers.
    Multi-Function Phased Array Radar [MPAR].--The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the MPAR program in the 
development and implementation of the next generation weather 
and aircraft radar surveillance network. The Committee supports 
the NAS Infrastructure Portfolio Activity to continue to 
advance ongoing program efforts. However, significant 
challenges require the consolidation of planning, and research 
and development strategies for the future success of the MPAR 
program. Specifically, the Committee is concerned regarding the 
uncertainty pertaining to cost sharing between the FAA and NOAA 
for technical risk reduction, non-recurring engineering, 
prototype development, and ultimate deployment and ongoing 
maintenance and operations costs. As such, the Committee 
directs that FAA continue working with NOAA for the MPAR 
program research and development effort and participate in an 
interagency committee with NOAA and other stakeholders to help 
formulate key requirements for development and eventual 
acquisition strategy. This Committee should serve as a means to 
coordinate with other government agencies, particularly DOD and 
DHS. Additionally, the Committee directs FAA to provide its 
expertise to NOAA to assist in facilitating a full evaluation 
of operational benefits including but not limited to weather 
surveillance, fine-scale numerical weather prediction, tracking 
of cooperative and uncooperative aircraft, discrimination of 
biological targets and small unmanned aerial systems, clutter 
suppression, data communication, and system reliability. FAA 
should provide to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations its support plan to help NOAA achieve these 
objectives 45 days after the enactment of this act.
    Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Range--Distance 
Measuring Equipment.--The Committee notes that the FAA has made 
progress implementing the Very High Frequency Omni-Directional 
Range Minimum Operating Network [VOR MON] program and 
addressing concerns raised from its unions. The Committee 
directs the FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on its strategy for using service-based 
approaches, including a discussion of how such approaches 
affect cost-effectiveness and system resiliency.
    Automation at Facilities That Provide En Route and Terminal 
Services.--The FAA has made significant investments to 
modernize its automation systems for both the en route and the 
terminal environments. In addition to supporting NextGen, this 
modernization effort has allowed the FAA to implement a common 
platform across en route facilities and across terminal 
facilities. Sharing the same automation platform will help make 
the FAA's air traffic control system more flexible and more 
efficient, and it will lower the cost of maintaining automation 
systems over the long term. The FAA, however, continues to use 
MicroEARTS at facilities that provide both en route and 
terminal services. The Committee is concerned about the 
condition of this platform, and questions if the FAA will 
secure the full benefit of modernization if it does not include 
all of its air traffic control facilities in this effort. The 
Committee therefore directs the FAA to evaluate the automation 
systems that are used at facilities providing both en route and 
terminal services, develop an investment plan for these 
facilities, and submit a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations no later than 1 year after 
enactment of this act.
    Military Operations Areas.--The Air Force, following 
extensive consultation with the FAA and stakeholders, is 
expanding the size of the Powder River Training Range--which 
covers areas of South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and 
Wyoming. The expansion will enable greater, and more realistic 
training opportunities for our Nation's military, including the 
use of this training range for limited large force military 
training exercises not to exceed 10 days per year. The FAA 
reviewed the USAF plans, particularly with regard to safety, 
and approved the expanded range in March 2015. The Committee 
urges the FAA to coordinate with the Department of Defense and 
the Air Force on a regular basis, and encourages the FAA to 
review the USAFs compliance with the record of decision, 
including requirements contained in the record of decision with 
respect to communications equipment near new areas that are 
designated for low altitude military training, and submit a 
report on its findings to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations no later than 1 year after enactment of this 
act, including an assessment of options for and feasibility of 
enhanced communication or surveillance equipment utilizing 
existing budget authorities. The Committee directs the FAA and 
DOD to proceed with the utilization of the expanded Range, as 
approved, as the FAA assesses additional equipment.

                 RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $156,750,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     166,000,000
House allowance.........................................     156,750,000
Committee recommendation................................     163,325,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $163,325,000 for the FAA's 
Research, Engineering, and Development activities. The 
recommended level of funding is $2,675,000 less than the budget 
request and $6,575,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level.
    A table showing the fiscal year 2015 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2016 budget estimate and the Committee 
recommendation follows:

                                     RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                   2015 enacted    2016 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety:
    Fire research and safety....................................      $6,000,000      $6,643,000      $6,643,000
    Propulsion and fuel systems.................................       2,000,000       3,034,000       2,034,000
    Advanced materials/structural safety........................       2,909,000       3,625,000       7,409,000
    Aircraft icing /digital system safety.......................       5,500,000       6,920,000       5,920,000
    Continued airworthiness.....................................       9,619,000       8,987,000       8,987,000
    Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research...........       1,500,000       1,433,000       1,433,000
    Flightdeck/maintenance/system integration human factors.....       6,000,000       9,947,000       5,000,000
    System safety management....................................       7,970,000       6,063,000       6,063,000
    Air traffic control/technical operations human factors......       5,400,000       5,995,000       4,995,000
    Aeromedical research........................................       8,300,000      10,255,000       8,300,000
    Weather program.............................................      14,847,000      18,253,000      15,000,000
    Unmanned aircraft systems research..........................      14,974,000       9,635,000      14,635,000
    NextGen--Alternative fuels for general aviation.............       6,000,000       5,833,000       7,000,000
    NextGen--Advanced system and software validation............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Economic competitiveness:
    NextGen--Wake turbulence....................................       8,541,000       8,680,000       8,541,000
    NextGen--Air ground integration human factors...............       9,697,000       8,875,000       7,875,000
    NextGen--Weather technology in the cockpit..................       4,048,000       4,116,000       4,048,000
    Commercial Space Transportation Safety......................  ..............       3,000,000       2,000,000
Environmental sustainability:
    Environment and energy......................................      14,921,000      15,061,000      16,074,000
    NextGen--Environmental research aircraft technologies,            23,014,000      23,823,000      25,823,000
     fuels, and metrics.........................................
Mission support:
    System planning and resource management.....................       2,100,000       2,377,000       2,100,000
    William J. Hughes Technical Center..........................       3,410,000       3,445,000       3,445,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     156,750,000     166,000,000     163,325,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unmanned Aerial Systems [UAS] Research--Center of 
Excellence.--The Committee recommendation includes $14,635,000 
for unmanned aircraft systems research, an increase of 
$5,000,000 above the budget request and $339,000 below the 
fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Committee directs the FAA 
to dedicate the funding increase over the budget request to the 
center of excellence.
    The Committee is pleased that the Department has 
established a UAS center of excellence to address a host of 
research challenges associated with integration of UAS into the 
national airspace. The formation of a UAS center of excellence 
is essential to meet the requirements enacted as part of the 
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Committee directs 
that the center of excellence shall focus on key areas of UAS 
research including: airworthiness, remote sensing, advanced 
composites, detect and avoid, and low altitude research in 
harsh climates. Additionally, the center should maintain close 
relations with disaster response agencies, the Department of 
Homeland Security and the Department of Agriculture in order to 
facilitate research in important UAS mission areas, such as 
environmental monitoring, weather and hydrologic prediction, 
precision agriculture, law enforcement, disaster response and 
oil transportation systems monitoring.
    Unmanned Aerial Systems Research--Test Sites.--The 
Committee notes that integration of UAS into the National 
Airspace System [NAS] remains a national priority with the 
potential to increase public safety and bring economic benefits 
to a wide range of industries. In December 2013, the FAA chose 
six UAS test sites to assist the FAA in meeting its UAS 
research needs. In order to successfully meet its goals for 
integration, the FAA must execute an organized research plan to 
effectively leverage the capabilities of the test sites, as 
well as research being done by other Federal agencies, such as 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to guide its 
ongoing efforts to integrate UAS into the NAS. Research 
projects and programs funded through the center of excellence 
should use the airspace and capabilities available through the 
six test sites when conducting flight operations and collecting 
data. The Committee expects UAS flight operations conducted as 
part of the center of excellence research to be performed at 
one of six test sites selected for UAS research and airspace 
integration. The Committee also directs the FAA's William J. 
Hughes Technical Center to use these test sites in conducting 
its research and operational tests. The Committee 
recommendation includes $14,635,000 for unmanned aircraft 
systems research, of which $9,635,000 fully funds the FAA's 
budget request to support the technical center's research 
activities related to unmanned systems. This funding may be 
used to support the center's research activities and 
operational tests conducted at the test sites.
    Because of the importance of these efforts, the Committee 
reiterates its direction from last year to improve the 
``Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems [UAS] in the 
National Airspace System [NAS] Roadmap,'' by including a 
strategic plan on research efforts. The strategic plan shall 
discuss: the specific research needs to safely integrate UAS 
into the NAS, including an examination of the research goals 
that the FAA must reach in order to successfully and safely 
advance NAS integration; FAA's strategy to obtain the 
identified research through partnerships with other Federal 
agencies, the UAS center of excellence, participants in the UAS 
and aviation industry, and the UAS test sites; and an 
evaluation of the ability of the UAS test sites to coordinate 
with the FAA and its center of excellence, and participate in 
the FAA's strategy to help achieve the research goals 
identified in the roadmap. The roadmap should also address 
milestones for research and development activities needed to 
allow operations of UAS flying beyond the line of sight. The 
first edition of the roadmap was published in 2013, and the 
Committee directs the FAA to update this roadmap no later than 
December 31, 2016.
    Unmanned Aerial Systems Research--Coordination with Other 
Agencies.--Both the U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP] 
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] 
research and develop UAS technologies. The Committee therefore 
encourages the FAA to leverage these research and development 
efforts as it integrates UAS into the national airspace. The 
Committee expects the FAA to use the resources provided for UAS 
research under the Committee recommendation to collect and 
evaluate data and information from CBP and NASA UAS projects, 
and to collaborate with these partners on research efforts 
necessary to integrate UAS into the national airspace.
    Unmanned Aerospace Systems.--Media Projects.--The Committee 
urges the FAA to direct potential news and broadcast media 
pilot projects to the UAS test sites for consideration. The 
test sites would conduct these projects of small unmanned 
aircraft systems in both simulated and live demonstrations of 
covering breaking news and other special events. Current FAA 
regulations and policies generally prohibit the operation of 
small UAS over persons not directly involved with the UAS 
operation. These restrictions severely inhibit the media's 
ability to serve the public interest through effective news 
gathering, and instead relegate media to use of manned 
helicopters, which the FAA itself has recognized poses greater 
risks to persons on the ground. The Committee recognizes the 
FAA's recently announced Pathfinder program includes a project 
with CNN to study operations over people. The Committee 
supports this project but believes it should be expanded, given 
the public interest in enhancing news gathering through 
innovative technologies. The objective of the pilot projects is 
to demonstrate the technological capabilities and operational 
conditions that would ensure the safety of operations of small 
UASs to attend breaking news and other special events.
    Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Airport Operations.--Given 
the rise in the number of UAS sightings at our Nation's 
airports, there is interest in using technology that will 
detect, identify and track air vehicles and ground controllers 
to explicitly identify UAS without interference and ensure the 
safety of existing airport operations. The Committee therefore 
urges the FAA to work with airports in order to assess the 
ability of such technology to defeat an errant or hostile UAS 
without causing collateral damage to essential navigation 
systems, wireless communications, the general public or other 
airport operations.
    Alternative Fuels for General Aviation.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $7,000,000 for research that supports 
alternative fuels for general aviation. This funding level is 
$1,167,000 above the budget request and $1,000,000 above the 
fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
    Environmental Sustainability.--The Committee recommendation 
includes a total of $41,897,000 for research related to 
environmental sustainability, which is $3,013,000 above the 
budget request and $3,962,000 above the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level. This total includes $16,074,000 under the 
``Environment and energy'' and another $25,823,000 under 
``NextGen--Environmental research aircraft technologies, fuels, 
and metrics.''
    The funding provided under these headings supports the 
FAA's continuous, lower energy emissions, and noise program 
[CLEEN], which has helped advance the research and development 
of advanced engine and airframe technologies that conserve more 
fuel and produce fewer emissions than today's technology.
    The funding also supports the FAA's center of excellence 
for alternative jet fuels and environment. The Committee 
directs the increase provided under its recommendation to this 
center of excellence, resulting in a total funding level of 
$10,513,000.

                       GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year--
                                             ---------------------------------------------------    Committee
                                                2015 enacted    2016 estimate   House allowance   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resources from the Airport and Airway Trust
 Fund:
    Limitation on obligations...............    3,350,000,000    2,900,000,000    3,350,000,000    3,350,000,000
    Liquidation of contract authorization...    3,200,000,000    3,500,000,000    3,600,000,000    3,600,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$3,350,000,000 for Grants-in-Aid for airports for fiscal year 
2016. The recommended limitation on obligations is equal to the 
enacted level for fiscal year 2015, and $450,000,000 more than 
the budget estimate. Under the request, large commercial 
airports no longer receive formula grants from the program, but 
they would be allowed to raise their passenger facility charges 
to finance capital improvements. The Committee notes that an 
increase to passenger facility charges was considered as part 
of the debate over the bill to reauthorize the FAA. That 
increase, however, was not included in the final legislation. 
The Committee therefore recommends a funding level that would 
fund capital improvements at all airports that support our 
Nation's air transportation system.
    In addition, the Committee recommends a liquidating cash 
appropriation of $3,600,000,000 for Grants-in-Aid for airports. 
The recommended level is $100,000,000 more than the budget 
estimate and $400,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level. This appropriation is sufficient to cover the 
liquidation of all obligations incurred pursuant to the 
limitation on obligations set forward in the bill.
    Finally, the Committee recommendation includes a rescission 
of any contract authority that would be created under section 
48112 in fiscal year 2016. This rescission would not affect the 
baseline set by the Congressional Budget Office.
    Administrative Expenses.--The Committee recommends 
$107,100,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding 
level is equal to the budget request and the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level.
    Airport Cooperative Research.--The Committee recommends 
$15,000,000 for the Airport Cooperative Research program. This 
funding level is equal to the budget estimate and the fiscal 
year 2015 enacted level.
    Airport Technology.--The Committee recommends $31,000,000 
for Airport Technology Research. This funding level is equal to 
the budget request and $1,250,000 more than the fiscal year 
2015 level.
    The Committee recommends the FAA study whether it is 
appropriate to expand the installation of foreign object debris 
detection technology at hub airports in order to increase 
safety.
    Small Community Air Service Development Program [SCASDP].--
The Committee recommends $10,000,000. This funding level is 
$4,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The 
budget request included no funds for this program for fiscal 
year 2016.
    Allocation of Resources.--The Committee recognizes many 
states have short construction seasons due to inclement weather 
and require certainty about airport grant allocations when 
making planning decisions. FAA is encouraged to work 
expeditiously to make entitlement and discretionary grant 
allocations, to provide certainty to northern State airports.

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

    Section 110 limits the number of technical staff years at 
the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to no more 
than 600 in fiscal year 2016.
    Section 111 prohibits funds in this act from being used to 
adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to 
provide the FAA ``without cost'' buildings, maintenance, or 
space for FAA services. The prohibition does not apply to 
negotiations between the FAA and airport sponsors concerning 
``below market'' rates for such services or to grant assurances 
that require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to 
the FAA for air traffic control facilities.
    Section 112 permits the Administrator to reimburse FAA 
appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C. 
41742(a)(1) as fees are collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 
45303.
    Section 113 allows funds received to reimburse the FAA for 
providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities 
to be credited to the Operations account.
    Section 114 prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium 
pay except in those cases where the individual actually worked 
on a Sunday.
    Section 115 prohibits the FAA from using funds provided in 
the bill to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates 
through a Government-issued credit card.
    Section 116 allows all airports experiencing the required 
level of boardings through charter and scheduled air service to 
be eligible for funds under 49 U.S.C. 47114(c).
    Section 117 requires approval from the Assistant Secretary 
for Administration of the Department of Transportation for 
retention bonuses for any FAA employee.
    Section 118 requires that, upon request by a private owner 
or operator of an aircraft, the Secretary block the display of 
that owner or operator's aircraft registration number in the 
Aircraft Situational Display to Industry program.
    Section 119 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and 
expenses of more than nine political and Presidential 
appointees in the Federal Aviation Administration.
    Section 119A requires the FAA to conduct public outreach 
and provide justification to the Committee before increasing 
fees under section 44721 of title 49, United States Code.
    Section 119B prohibits funds from being used to change 
weight restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro 
Airport in New Jersey.
    Section 119C requires the FAA to notify the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations at least 90 days before 
closing a regional operations center or reducing the services 
it provides.

                     Federal Highway Administration


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level 
of $40,995,000,000 is provided for the activities of the 
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2016. The 
recommendation is $10,312,248,000 less than the budget request 
and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The following 
table summarizes the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fiscal year--
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------     Committee
                                         2015 enacted      2016 estimate     House allowance     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways program            $40,256,000,000    $50,068,248,000    $40,256,000,000    $40,256,000,000
 obligation limitation..............
Contract authority exempt from the          739,000,000        739,000,000        739,000,000        739,000,000
 obligation limitation..............
Fixing and accelerating surface       .................        500,000,000  .................  .................
 transportation.....................
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................     40,995,000,000     51,307,248,000     40,995,000,000     40,995,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation, 2015\1\.....................................    $426,100,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     442,248,000
House allowance.........................................     429,348,000
Committee recommendation................................     429,348,000

\1\Does not include $3,248,000 transferred to the Appalachian Regional 
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$429,348,000 for administrative expenses of the agency and for 
administrative expenses of the Appalachian Regional Commission 
in accordance with section 104 of title 23, United States Code. 
This limitation is $12,900,000 less than the budget request and 
equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level when taking into 
account the $3,248,000 transfer to the Appalachian Regional 
Commission.
    The Committee recommendation includes bill language that 
makes sufficient contract authority available for FHWA's 
administrative expenses to meet its needs in fiscal year 2016. 
The Committee remains concerned about the FHWA's ability to 
continue providing oversight and critical support to State and 
local partners in a time of budgetary constraints, and is 
disappointed that FHWA has yet to submit a 6-year strategic 
plan as required by Senate Report 113-182.

                          FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2015........................................ $40,256,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................  50,068,248,000
House allowance.........................................  40,256,000,000
Committee recommendation................................  40,256,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2016 
obligations to $40,256,000,000, which is $9,812,248 less than 
the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level for the Federal-aid highway program. This funding level 
is consistent with current funding levels under the most recent 
authorization law, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act [MAP-21].
    In addition, the bill includes a provision that allows the 
FHWA to collect and spend fees in order to pay for the services 
of expert firms in the field of municipal and project finance 
to assist the agency in the provision of credit instruments.
    Advanced Composite Bridge Technologies.--The Committee 
supports the Technology and Innovation Deployment Program's 
efforts to improve the safety, efficiency, reliability, and 
performance of our Nation's transportation infrastructure. It 
also notes the growing need to accelerate the adoption of best 
practices, technologies, and materials that lead to faster 
construction and cost-effective rehabilitation of efficient and 
safe bridges. The Committee encourages the Department to use 
funds authorized under 503(c) of title 23, United States Code, 
for the demonstration and deployment of advanced composite 
materials in bridge replacement and rehabilitation.
    Environmental Reviews.--The Committee recognizes the 
Department's efforts to implement the administratively related 
streamlining provisions included in MAP-21. The Committee 
encourages the Department to continue its efforts to implement 
these changes nationally, and recognizes the efforts made by 
the Administration to work cooperatively with other Federal 
agencies and with State governments, including its work with 
the State of Utah on its Mountain Accord approach for a 
regional transportation, land use, natural resource and 
economic solution. The Committee encourages the Department to 
continue participating in the streamlined facilitation of the 
environmental impact processes for regional and national 
transportation projects in conjunction with multiple Federal 
agencies, diverse public and private interests including State 
and local governments and public interest groups.
    Bridge Deck Assessment Technologies.--The Committee is 
aware that some States and other bridge-owners would benefit 
from highly efficient, non-destructive, technologies and 
methods that do not require lane closure and that provide 
quantitative data so engineers can identify specific areas of 
bridge decks that require repair so as to minimize the time and 
cost of bridge deck assessments. The Committee is aware that 
several States have sponsored demonstrations of emergent 
technologies that could help meet these requirements. The 
Committee again notes the growing need to accelerate the 
adoption of best practices, technologies, and materials that 
lead to faster bridge deck assessment and encourages the 
Department to use funding in the Technology and Innovation 
Deployment Program for the demonstration by State departments 
of transportation of proven bridge deck assessment technologies 
that require minimal or no lane closures.
    Performance-Based Pavement Preservation Deployment.--As 
State and local highway agencies shift their focus to 
maintaining existing roadways rather than expanding current 
systems, better information is needed to effectively select and 
apply pavement preservation treatments. The Committee 
recommends that FHWA conduct applied pavement preservation 
research and deployment activities to ensure that roadway 
conditions are maintained in the most cost-effective means 
possible. FHWA should facilitate the collection and evaluation 
of performance-based pavement preservation data from State 
pavement management systems and national field studies.
    Alternate Design/Alternate Bid [AD/AB].--The Committee is 
aware of the potential of Alternate Design and Alternate Bid 
[AD/AB] procurement methods in reducing the overall cost of 
infrastructure projects. With limited funding available for 
highway projects, it is essential that FHWA promote the 
efficient use of Federal funding provided by the Committee. The 
Committee directs the agency to issue guidance to division 
offices and States on the use of AD/AB and other innovative 
contracting methods eligible under subsection 120(c) of title 
23, United States Code that increase competition and help lower 
the cost of infrastructure projects.
    Tribal Transportation Programs.--The Committee recognizes 
the immense transportation infrastructure needs of Indian 
Country. Only around 8 percent of the nearly 14,000 miles of 
roads and trails owned and maintained by Indian tribes are 
paved. Furthermore, around 75 percent of the 29,400 miles of 
roads owned and maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are 
classified as graveled, earth, or primitive. In 2012, MAP-21 
replaced the Indian Reservation Roads Program with the Tribal 
Transportation Program [TTP] and folded several programs, 
including the Bridge Program and Safety Program, into the TTP. 
However, current funding levels do not meet the true needs in 
Indian Country. This investment gap limits economic growth and 
safety improvements in Indian Country and adds to the backlog 
of necessary maintenance projects. As such, the Committee 
directs the Department of Transportation to work with the 
Department of the Interior and report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations on the transportation 
infrastructure needs facing Indian country and proposed steps 
to make improvements. The Committee expects the Department to 
complete the report in a timely manner so that it can inform 
Congress as it considers legislation that funds the Tribal 
Transportation Program.
    Highway Easement.--The Secretary is directed to work with 
the Chief of the Forest Service to ensure that easements are 
issued in a timely manner as required by section 4407 of Public 
Law 109-59.
    State Apportionments.--The following table shows the 
expected obligation limitation provided to each State under the 
Committee's recommended funding level:

                                FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2015 enacted    2016 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                       Formula Programs
 
Alabama......................................................     $675,218,615     $849,246,456     $675,218,615
Alaska.......................................................      425,867,575      536,041,394      425,867,575
Arizona......................................................      651,913,858      810,997,919      651,913,858
Arkansas.....................................................      450,253,847      567,697,218      450,253,847
California...................................................    3,207,910,392    3,957,856,553    3,207,910,392
Colorado.....................................................      476,542,508      591,675,985      476,542,508
Connecticut..................................................      436,652,454      543,617,617      436,652,454
Delaware.....................................................      144,179,177      180,644,441      144,179,177
District of Columbia.........................................      142,155,608      176,973,736      142,155,608
Florida......................................................    1,686,192,861    2,121,368,289    1,686,192,861
Georgia......................................................    1,150,024,045    1,435,902,384    1,150,024,045
Hawaii.......................................................      144,077,317      180,803,892      144,077,317
Idaho........................................................      254,708,403      318,505,231      254,708,403
Illinois.....................................................    1,267,031,514    1,572,955,495    1,267,031,514
Indiana......................................................      826,157,520    1,036,963,346      826,157,520
Iowa.........................................................      437,459,635      537,821,961      437,459,635
Kansas.......................................................      336,396,108      422,072,390      336,396,108
Kentucky.....................................................      591,395,358      743,099,134      591,395,358
Louisiana....................................................      595,789,190      755,097,311      595,789,190
Maine........................................................      160,807,064      201,258,062      160,807,064
Maryland.....................................................      535,659,466      661,812,547      535,659,466
Massachusetts................................................      541,559,818      668,686,638      541,559,818
Michigan.....................................................      938,135,754    1,166,664,467      938,135,754
Minnesota....................................................      567,819,564      711,856,554      567,819,564
Mississippi..................................................      420,593,438      530,346,199      420,593,438
Missouri.....................................................      823,400,811    1,037,588,229      823,400,811
Montana......................................................      357,027,457      449,029,291      357,027,457
Nebraska.....................................................      257,353,263      322,283,289      257,353,263
Nevada.......................................................      323,662,229      401,172,531      323,662,229
New Hampshire................................................      146,296,021      182,424,609      146,296,021
New Jersey...................................................      886,934,422    1,096,432,140      886,934,422
New Mexico...................................................      319,476,963      402,207,065      319,476,963
New York.....................................................    1,496,873,904    1,846,620,067    1,496,873,904
North Carolina...............................................      928,844,967    1,158,426,221      928,844,967
North Dakota.................................................      216,116,257      271,262,641      216,116,257
Ohio.........................................................    1,168,439,039    1,458,317,636    1,168,439,039
Oklahoma.....................................................      560,681,360      705,649,276      560,681,360
Oregon.......................................................      435,040,366      546,559,183      435,040,366
Pennsylvania.................................................    1,461,703,382    1,820,841,293    1,461,703,382
Rhode Island.................................................      189,535,419      237,893,336      189,535,419
South Carolina...............................................      582,262,339      688,703,541      582,262,339
South Dakota.................................................      245,497,450      308,177,589      245,497,450
Tennessee....................................................      735,612,759      923,561,695      735,612,759
Texas........................................................    3,074,155,132    3,511,714,270    3,074,155,132
Utah.........................................................      302,236,325      352,284,477      302,236,325
Vermont......................................................      176,824,829      221,190,339      176,824,829
Virginia.....................................................      886,317,671    1,110,285,542      886,317,671
Washington...................................................      603,865,356      753,068,250      603,865,356
West Virginia................................................      380,211,336      478,553,595      380,211,336
Wisconsin....................................................      669,952,033      838,954,388      669,952,033
Wyoming......................................................      217,848,441      274,762,117      217,848,441
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................   34,510,670,620   42,677,927,829   34,510,670,620
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
Allocated programs...........................................    5,364,809,825    6,995,860,552    5,364,809,825
Sections 154 and 164 Penalties...............................      365,671,347      379,611,411      365,671,347
High Risk Rural Roads Special Rule...........................       14,848,208       14,848,208       14,848,208
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................   40,256,000,000   50,068,248,000   40,256,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                 LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2015.................................... $40,995,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016\1\................................  51,307,248,000
House allowance.........................................  40,995,000,000
Committee recommendation................................  40,995,000,000

\1\Includes $500,000,000 for the Fast and Accelerating Surface 
Transportation program.

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $40,995,000,000. The recommended level is $10,312,248,000 
less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level. This level of liquidating authority is necessary 
to pay outstanding obligations from various highway accounts 
pursuant to this and prior appropriations acts.

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

    Section 120 distributes obligation authority among Federal-
aid Highway programs.
    Section 121 continues a provision that credits funds 
received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the 
Federal-aid highways account.
    Section 122 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy 
America requirements.
    Section 123 requires congressional notification before the 
Department provides credit assistance under the TIFIA program.
    Section 124 makes contract authority available for FHWA's 
administrative expenses.
    Section 125 allows current truck weight limitations to 
remain in place for roads designated as I-69 in Texas and for a 
portion of a road designated as I-555 in Arkansas.
    Section 126 allows State DOTs to repurpose certain highway 
project funding to be used within 50 miles of its original 
designation.
    Section 127 provides a limited agricultural exemption for 
trucks during harvest months.

              Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total level of $572,000,000 for 
obligations and liquidations from the Highway Trust Fund. This 
level is $96,523,000 less than the request and $12,000,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.

              MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2015........................................    $271,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     329,180,000
House allowance.........................................     259,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     259,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and 
authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract 
authorization of $259,000,000 for FMCSA's Operations and 
Programs. The recommendation is $12,000,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2015 enacted level and $70,180,000 less than the 
budget request. The recommended level of funding is consistent 
with MAP-21 and does not continue the repurposing of 
unobligated balances from previous fiscal years. Of the total 
limitation on obligations, $9,000,000 is for research and 
technology, $1,000,000 is for commercial motor vehicle operator 
grants, and $34,545,000 is for information management.
    Electronic Logging Devices.--In 1977, NTSB issued its first 
recommendation on the use of on-board data recording devices, 
or electronic logging devices [ELDs], to provide an efficient 
and reliable means of tracking the number of hours a commercial 
motor vehicle operator drives. MAP-21 mandated that FMCSA issue 
a rule by October 2013, but the agency failed to issue its 
proposed rule until March 2014. The Committee supports the 
expanded use of ELDs, encourages FMCSA to work aggressively to 
implement the ELD mandate, and directs the FMCSA to publish its 
final rule on ELDs no later than 60 days after enactment of 
this act.
    Heavy Vehicle Speed Limiters.--A coalition of trucking 
industry and safety advocates petitioned the Department in 2006 
to initiate a rulemaking mandating all class 7 and 8 trucks to 
have their top speeds electronically limited to no more than 65 
miles per hour. NHTSA finally granted this petition in 2011 and 
has been developing a proposed rulemaking with FMCSA that would 
consider new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the 
installation of speed limiting devices. The agency has stated 
that the rulemaking would have minimal costs and decrease fatal 
crashes, but has delayed publication of the proposed rule 21 
times. The Committee directs the Department to complete its 
proposed rule within 60 days of enactment of this act.
    High-Risk Carriers.--Under FMCSA regulations, carriers 
identified as mandatory must have a compliance review conducted 
within 1 year. The FMCSA's compliance with this requirement has 
improved significantly, from completing reviews of 69 percent 
of high-risk carriers in fiscal year 2008 to 94 percent in the 
2013 calendar year. Yet the backlog of carriers remaining in 
mandatory status that have not been investigated, gone out of 
business, or switched to intrastate operations continues to 
grow. FMCSA contends that the tracking and monitoring of high-
risk carriers is a manually intensive process, particularly for 
carriers operating under consent decrees. In order to automate 
these systems and provide a higher level of safety compliance 
review, the Committee provided additional resources in Public 
Law 113-235 and directed FMCSA to provide a plan for the 
required information technology [IT] investments. To date, no 
such plan has been provided to the Committee. The Committee 
again directs FMCSA to provide its plan for IT automation prior 
to obligating any funding for this purpose. The Committee also 
directs the agency to provide the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations with an updated report on its ability to meet 
its requirements to evaluate mandatory carriers by April 15, 
2016 for the preceding fiscal year.
    Online Safety Performance Data.--A key component of FMCSA's 
Compliance, Safety, Accountability [CSA] program is the Safety 
Measurement System [SMS] which uses carrier performance data 
from inspections and investigations to calculate safety scores 
and identify those at high risk of causing a crash. In 2014, 
the GAO identified major challenges that limit the precision of 
the SMS scores and their ability to compare safety performance 
across carriers. As a result, GAO recommended that FMCSA revise 
the SMS methodology. At a March 4, 2015, hearing before the 
Commerce Committee, the GAO testified that, ``without efforts 
to revise its SMS methodology, FMCSA will not be able to 
effectively target its intervention resources toward the 
highest risk carriers and will be challenged to meet its 
mission of reducing the overall crashes, injuries, and 
fatalities involving large trucks and buses.'' Due to these 
concerns, GAO recommended that FMCSA not publicize the flawed 
SMS scores on the agency's Web site and to only use the scores 
for targeting enforcement efforts.
    Yet just 2 weeks later on March 17, 2015, FMCSA released a 
smartphone app called QC Mobile (QC standing for Query Central) 
that further publicizes its flawed safety performance data 
scores on a handheld device, in direct opposition of GAO's 
recommendations. While the Committee acknowledges that agencies 
do not always concur with GAO recommendations, it is deeply 
troubled by FMCSA's lack of willingness to address reasonable 
concerns about its safety performance data. The Committee 
directs FMCSA to prominently display on any Web site, 
smartphone app, or other electronic medium that provides 
carriers' SMS scores a disclaimer highlighting GAO's concerns 
and recommendations about the SMS methodology, and warning 
users that SMS scores are not necessarily reliable indicators 
of relative safety performance.
    Specially Constructed Rail Service Vehicles.--The Committee 
is concerned that FMCSA's Federal hours of service regulations, 
found in 49 CFR subsection 395.3, may not take into account the 
unique operating environment of specially trained drivers of 
commercial motor vehicles specifically constructed to service, 
inspect, maintain, and repair railroad track to support 
railroad safety and operations. The Committee encourages the 
FMCSA to collaborate with the rail service stakeholder 
community to consider an exemption for these rail service 
providers such that on-duty time could not include waiting time 
at a rail site. Instead, waiting time could be recorded as 
``off duty'' for purposes of subsection 395.8 and 395.15, and 
waiting time could not be included in calculating the 14-hour 
period in section 395.3(a)(2), the 60-hour period in section 
395.3(b)(1), or the 70-hour period in section 395.3(b)(2). This 
collaboration shall include providing technical assistance to 
the rail service stakeholder community as it considers an 
application for exemption from these specifics hours of service 
regulations.
    Windshield Mounted Safety Technologies.--Current FMCSA 
regulations restrict the ability to mount vehicle safety 
technologies on windshields in order to prevent obstruction of 
a driver's field of view. The agency has in the past recognized 
the benefits of these technologies and granted short-term 
exemptions in cases where the level of safety is not reduced. 
The Committee directs the Secretary to prescribe, no later than 
180 days after the enactment of this act, regulations modifying 
49 CFR 393.60(e) to permanently allow the voluntary mounting on 
a vehicle's windshield of vehicle safety technology likely to 
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater 
than, the level of safety that would be achieved absent such 
exemption. Vehicle safety technologies to be considered include 
fleet-related incident management systems, driver performance/
behavior management systems, speed management systems, lane 
departure warning systems, forward collision warning and/or 
mitigation systems, active cruise control systems, and any 
other technologies deemed applicable by the Secretary. 
Technologies that had a short-term exemption under 49 CFR part 
381 in effect on January 1, 2015, shall be considered likely to 
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater 
than, the level of safety that would be achieved absent such 
exemption.
    Natural Gas Vehicle Regulations.--The Committee recognizes 
the significant growth and value in the market for natural gas 
as a transportation fuel and is aware that certain DOT 
regulations that address the safety of natural gas vehicles 
have not been updated to keep pace with new developments and 
the advancement of natural gas vehicles. Accordingly, the 
Department is encouraged to develop new safety regulations and 
inspection procedures for liquefied natural gas [LNG] fuel 
tanks and fuel systems on commercial motor vehicles, and revise 
and harmonize requirements for compressed natural gas [CNG] 
cylinders that address the inspection of such cylinders. The 
Department is also expected to work with industry and 
manufacturers to clarify and address the ability of bus 
manufacturers to continue to deploy buses that have roof-top 
mounted CNG cylinders. In addition, as there are no Federal 
regulations that prohibit the interstate movement of natural 
gas vehicles as it relates to the fuel stored onboard these 
vehicles for motive power, the Secretary shall clarify through 
guidance that, rules restricting access to bridges and tunnels 
in the case of an alternative fuel vehicle should not be any 
more restrictive than those addressing gasoline and diesel 
fueled vehicles.

                      MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Liquidation of
                                         contract        Limitation on
                                      authorization       obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2015..............       $313,000,000       $313,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.............        339,343,000        339,343,000
House allowance...................        313,000,000        313,000,000
Committee recommendation..........        313,000,000        313,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                      MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and 
authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract 
authorization of $313,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants. 
The recommended limitation is equal to the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level and $26,343,000 less than the budget request. The 
Committee recommends a separate limitation on obligations for 
each grant program funded under this account with the funding 
allocation identified below. The obligation limitation listed 
below for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP] 
includes $218,000,000 for High Priority grants, of which 
$32,000,000 is for New Entrant grants.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor carrier safety assistance program [MCSAP]......       $218,000,000
Commercial driver's license program improvement               30,000,000
 grants..............................................
Border enforcement grants............................         32,000,000
Performance and registration information system                5,000,000
 management grant program............................
Commercial vehicle information systems and networks           25,000,000
 deployment program..................................
Safety data improvement grants.......................          3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MCSAP Grants.--The MCSAP grant program, as currently 
authorized under MAP-21, provides $218 million to States to 
help reduce the number and severity of crashes and related 
fatalities and injuries involving commercial motor vehicles. 
States can use MCSAP grants for multiple purposes, such as 
roadside inspections of large trucks and buses, and compliance 
reviews and safety audits of motor carriers, to assist FMCSA in 
detecting and correcting vehicle safety defects, driver 
deficiencies, and unsafe motor carrier practices before they 
become contributing factors to crashes. Roadside inspections 
conducted in conjunction with traffic enforcement stops have 
declined 36 percent from 2011 to 2014. Moreover, in 2013, DOT 
reported Antideficiency Act violations related to FMCSA's 
mismanagement of several grant programs including MCSAP. 
Because of these concerns, the Committee directs the OIG to 
conduct an audit to evaluate FMCSA's policies, procedures, and 
processes for ensuring MCSAP grantees' compliance with Federal 
requirements, and for tracking and monitoring MCSAP grant 
oversight activities.

 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMNINSTRATION

    Section 130(a) subjects the funds in this act to section 
350 of Public Law 107-87 in order to ensure the safety of all 
cross-border long haul operations conducted by Mexican-
domiciled commercial carriers.
    Section 130(b) removes an annual reporting requirement for 
the OIG.
    Section 131 requires FMCSA to send notices of 49 C.F.R. 
section 385.308 violations in such a way that receipt of the 
notice is confirmed.
    Section 132 allows States that issued Commercial License 
Permits [CLPs] to individuals under age 18 prior to the May 9, 
2011, rulemaking to continue to do so. FMCSA established a 
minimum age of 18 for issuance of a CLP without awareness of 
existing State rules and regulations at that time. In many 
States, commercial truck driving programs are offered through 
vocational training programs and the Job Corps targeted at 
students between the ages of 16 and 18. These programs help 
students prepare to drive commercial vehicles at age 18 and on 
the interstates after age 21, which are the minimum ages for 
Commercial Driver Licenses in all States.
    Section 133 limits funding from being used to deny the 
renewal of a hazardous material safety permit under certain 
conditions.
    The Committee urges FMCSA to expedite a rulemaking process 
to address this important issue.
    Section 134 allows the Secretary of Transportation to 
continue the suspension of certain provisions of the Hours of 
Service restart rule if the study required by Congress in 
Public Law 113-164, does not demonstrate that the July 1, 2013, 
restart provisions resulted in statistically significant net 
safety benefits.
    Section 135 limits funds for the Secretary of 
Transportation to increase minimum financial responsibility 
levels for motor carriers until 60 days after the Secretary 
submits a report on the impact of raising minimum financial 
responsibility levels.
    Section 136 clarifies that certain commercial regulations 
that do not impact safety are not applicable to summer camps.
    Section 137 extends the current 28 feet minimum requirement 
for a semitrailer or trailer operating in a truck tractor 
semitrailer-trailer combination to 33 feet. The bill also 
provides authority to a State Department of Transportation, in 
addition to the existing authority for a Governor, to request 
an exemption for any segment of the National Highway Network, 
if it is not capable of safely accommodating a commercial motor 
vehicle at the 33-foot configuration. The Secretary of 
Transportation is directed to provide quarterly to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations a consolidated list of 
State exemptions and the analysis used to determine such 
findings. The Secretary also is directed to provide a crash 
data analysis report comparing twin 28-foot configurations to 
33-foot configurations to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations 3 years from the date of enactment of this act. 
Additionally, the Secretary is directed to make recommendations 
as to whether the adoption of any technologies, such as 
collision avoidance and stability control, would improve 
safety. Finally, the Secretary is directed to ensure, through 
guidance, that States are made aware of existing authority in 
law to determine which routes off the National Network can be 
restricted to trucks without going through a formal process. 
This authority may be used by States to ensure that longer twin 
trailers are not able to access local downtown roadways or 
other highway or bridge infrastructure that may not be designed 
to support them.

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Continuing a long term trend, the number of people who died 
in traffic crashes in 2013 declined to 32,719, which was a 3.1 
percent decrease from the previous year and a nearly 25 percent 
decline in overall highway deaths since 2004. The estimated 
number of people injured in crashes also declined by 2.1 
percent. This decline in traffic fatalities continues a long-
term downward trend leading to the fatality rate matching a 
historic low of 1.10 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles 
traveled. As the volume of freight and passenger vehicles on 
our highways continues to grow, NHTSA and its State partners 
must remain diligent to prevent further increases in the number 
of fatalities. The Committee recommends $824,500,000 for NHTSA 
to maintain current programs and continue its mission to save 
lives, prevent injuries, and reduce vehicle-related crashes. 
This level includes both budget authority and limitations on 
the obligation of contract authority. This funding is 
$83,500,000 less than the President's request and $5,500,000 
less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
    The following table summarizes Committee recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Highway trust
                                                                   General fund        fund            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation 2015..............................................    $130,000,000    $700,000,000    $830,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...........................................  ..............     908,000,000     908,000,000
House allowance.................................................     152,800,000     686,500,000     839,300,000
Committee recommendation........................................     130,500,000     694,000,000     824,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Highway trust
                                                                   General fund        fund            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.................................    $130,000,000    $138,500,000    $268,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016...........................................  ..............     331,000,000     331,000,000
House allowance.................................................     152,800,000     125,000,000     277,800,000
Committee recommendation........................................     130,500,000     118,500,000     249,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides $249,000,000 for Operations and 
Research, which includes funding for the National Driver 
Register. This level of funding is $82,000,000 less than the 
President's budget request and $19,500,000 less than the fiscal 
year 2015 enacted level. Of the total amount recommended for 
Operations and Research, $130,500,000 is derived from the 
general fund and $118,500,000 is derived from the Highway Trust 
Fund, of which $5,000,000 is for the National Driver Register. 
The Committee recommendation also repurposes $14,000,000 in 
unobligated balances from Highway Traffic Safety Grants, of 
which $10,000,000 is for highway safety research and 
development and $4,000,000 is for vehicle safety research, 
which provides a total of $263,000,000 for Operations and 
Research. The Committee recommendation includes $7,900,000 for 
the Fuel Economy Program, $10,000,000 for the New Car 
Assessment Program, and $9,140,000 for Vehicle Safety 
Compliance.
    Crash Data Collection.--In fiscal year 2012, the Committee 
provided one-time funding to support data modernization efforts 
for the National Automotive Sampling System that provides crash 
data on a nationally representative sample of police-reported 
motor vehicle crashes. The Committee directed the agency to 
both expand the scope and increase the sample size of its data 
collection to improve the precision of the statistical 
estimates and to take a comprehensive review of the data 
elements collected from each site to provide more relevant 
information for policy makers. The funds are being used to 
design two new samples, purchase better equipment for the 
technicians, consolidate and improve the underlying IT and 
begin phasing in the new systems. Over the next few years, 
NHTSA will transition to two new crash sample systems, known as 
Crash Investigation Sampling System [CISS] and the Crash Report 
Sampling System [CRSS], which are expected to generate key 
crash estimates that are more accurate than those generated 
with the current data systems.
    In order to further increase the sample size of crashes and 
ensure a smooth transition to the new systems, the Committee 
provides at least $34,205,000 for Crash Data Collection. This 
funding level supports not only CISS and CRSS, but also the 
Fatality Analysis Reporting System, Special Crash 
Investigations, the State Data System, and the Not in Traffic 
Surveillance system. The Committee is aware of delays in 
setting up new crash sites due to the Department's flawed 
interpretation of OMB Memo 12-12 and expects such issues to be 
resolved in a timely manner going forward.
    Office of Defects Investigation [ODI].--The Safety Defects 
Investigation program investigates possible defect trends, and 
where appropriate, seeks recalls of vehicles and vehicle 
equipment that pose an unreasonable safety risk. To perform 
this mission, NHTSA maintains the collection of early warning 
reporting data submitted by manufacturers to the Advanced 
Retrieval Tire, Equipment, Motor Vehicle Information System, as 
well as complaints from vehicle owners, recalls, and crash 
investigations. The agency then analyzes the early warning data 
to determine whether anomalies or trends exist that potentially 
indicate the presence of a safety-related problem.
    The Committee recommendation includes funding for an 
additional 13 FTE for ODI to process and analyze data 
collection from consumer complaints and to conduct 
investigations. The Committee further directs the agency to 
conduct inquiries on all death claims related to vehicle safety 
defects. This funding builds on the additional funding provided 
last year to support the implementation and maintenance of the 
electronic document and records management system corporate 
information factory to allow the agency to have more 
transparency to its data and enable faster, more reliable 
results for defect screeners and investigators.
    Plastics and Polymer Composite Materials.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance that plastics and polymer-based 
composite materials play in reducing vehicle weight. They 
provide vehicle manufacturers with innovative tools to reduce 
fuel consumption and, by association, vehicle emissions, 
including air toxics and greenhouse gasses. As manufacturers 
plan for future fleets, composite materials offer benefits for 
meeting new targets established under NHTSA's recent vehicle 
fuel efficiency rules. At the same time, the Committee 
recognizes that composite manufacturing is a new and growing 
industry, providing highly skilled jobs in the automotive 
industry. The Committee directs NHTSA to use funding provided 
for the Fuel Economy program to accelerate the advancement of 
the state of the art for computer modeling of advanced plastic 
and polymer composites, including testing and evaluation 
techniques, while validating the safety performance of polymer-
based composites in structural applications for the automotive 
industry. The program will help facilitate a foundation of 
cooperation between DOT, the Department of Energy, and industry 
stakeholders for the development of safety-centered approaches 
for future light-weight automotive design.
    Distracted Driving Research.--NHTSA recently issued 
research and guidelines on distracted driving that do not 
consider the issue of cognitive distraction due to its reliance 
solely on a naturalistic methodology to determine safety 
impact. The Committee is aware of multiple research 
methodologies currently used to measure various aspects of 
distracted driving and is concerned that the agency's over-
reliance on naturalistic research. The Committee directs NHTSA 
to consider multiple research methodologies, including 
epidemiological and simulator studies, equally to measure the 
safety impacts of distracted driving going forward.
    Child Hyperthermia Prevention.--The Committee commends 
NHTSA for increasing public awareness of the risks of death and 
serious injury to children from hyperthermia when left 
unattended in vehicles. The Committee is aware of recent 
surveys which demonstrate that there has been a substantial 
increase in public awareness of the dangers of hyperthermia and 
changes in behavior by parents, which has helped reduce the 
number of child deaths to 30 in 2014, the second lowest since 
1998. The Committee supports the agency's plan to continue a 
broad, coordinated national campaign along the lines of the 
successful efforts more than a decade ago that convinced more 
parents and caregivers to place children 12 years of age and 
younger in safer rear seats. The Committee encourages the NHTSA 
to coordinate with the FHWA to encourage State highway offices 
to use existing communications platforms such as dynamic 
highway message signs to enhance ongoing awareness programs 
during the hot weather season. The Committee directs NHTSA to 
coordinate with industry to provide an assessment of available, 
voluntary products or technologies that can serve as a reminder 
to parents to unbuckle and remove children from the back seat 
prior to exiting their vehicle. The agency shall submit its 
assessment to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
within 180 days of enactment of this act.
    Road Safety Innovation.--The Committee is pleased that the 
Department recently announced the acceleration of its public 
time table for its proposal to require vehicle-to-vehicle [V2V] 
communication devices in new vehicles including expediting the 
testing to determine the feasibility of sharing arrangements to 
allow for the operation of unlicensed devices within the 
relevant band. The Committee strongly supports finalizing the 
proposed rule as quickly as possible given the potential for 
these new innovative technologies to greatly enhance road 
safety and directs NHTSA to report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment of 
this act on the status of implementation of the final rule.

                     HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Liquidation of
                                            contract      Limitation on
                                         authorization     obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2015..................     $561,500,000     $561,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................      577,000,000      577,000,000
House allowance.......................      561,500,000      561,500,000
Committee recommendation..............      575,500,000      575,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations and 
authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract 
authorization of $575,500,000 for the highway traffic safety 
grant programs funded under this heading, of which $14,000,000 
shall be repurposed for operations and research. The 
recommended limitation is $1,500,000 less than the budget 
estimate and $14,000,000 above the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level.
    The Committee continues to recommend prohibiting the use of 
section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or 
remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for 
State, local, or private buildings or structures.
    The authorized funding for administrative expenses and for 
each grant program is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Safety Programs (section 402)...................    $235,000,000
National Priority Safety Programs (section 405).........     272,000,000
High Visibility Enforcement Program.....................      29,000,000
Administrative Expenses.................................      25,500,000
Repurposed for Operations and Research (Vehicle Safety         4,000,000
 Research)..............................................
Repurposed for Operations and Research (Highway Safety        10,000,000
 R&D;)...................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Drunk Driving Prevention.--Since 2008, NHTSA has partnered 
with leading automobile manufacturers in the Automotive 
Coalition for Traffic Safety [ACTS] on an ambitious research 
program to develop in-vehicle technology to prevent alcohol-
impaired driving that is publicly acceptable, unobtrusive for 
drivers below the legal limit of .08 BAC, reliable, and 
relatively inexpensive. To date, progress has been significant, 
including the identification of two competing technological 
approaches which are being installed in research vehicles for 
pilot field testing. The Committee continues to strongly 
support this promising research partnership, which has the 
potential to prevent thousands of drunk driving deaths 
annually. The Committee recommends $5,440,000 for ACTS to 
continue this research, which is $134,000 less than the budget 
request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The 
Committee directs the agency to submit the annual report 
required by subsection 403(h)(4) of title 23, United States 
Code to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    The Committee also recognizes that MAP-21 included 24/7 
Sobriety Programs as an eligible activity that States can use 
to address alcohol-impaired driving. Over 10,000 people die 
each year as a result of alcohol-impaired driving. According to 
NHTSA, 12 percent of intoxicated drivers involved in fatal 
crashes had at least one prior driving while intoxicated [DWI] 
conviction in the past 3 years. NHTSA studies also show that 
intoxicated drivers with prior DWI convictions had over 4 times 
the risk of being in a fatal crash as intoxicated drivers 
without a prior DWI and fatal crash risk increases with the 
number of prior DWI arrests. Given the significant challenge of 
repeat impaired driving offenders, some States have turned to 
24/7 Sobriety Programs that enables convicted repeat offenders 
to enroll in a program that prohibits consuming any alcohol for 
a period of time. A 24/7 Sobriety Program can protect the 
public against alcohol-impaired driving crashes, while enabling 
participants to seek treatment for and recover from alcohol 
abuse, and be a productive member of society. The Committee 
supports 24/7 Sobriety Programs as another approach that States 
can adopt to combat high recidivist impaired drivers and 
encourages NHTSA to work with States to make more extensive use 
of this program.

      ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 
                             ADMINISTRATION

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

                    Federal Railroad Administration

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

                         SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $186,870,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     203,800,000
House allowance.........................................     190,370,000
Committee recommendation................................     199,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recognizes the importance of taking a 
holistic approach to improving railroad safety and supports a 
comprehensive strategy of data-driven regulatory and inspection 
efforts, proactive approaches to identify and mitigate risks, 
and strategic capital investments in order to improve safety. 
While the FRA has made progress, it is evident that more still 
must be done. In the last year, several high profile incidents 
underscore the importance of targeting Federal resources to 
those most pressing rail safety issues. Accidents like the 
freight train derailments near Galena, Illinois, in Fayette 
County, West Virginia, and Heimdal, North Dakota, as well as 
the passenger train collisions in Valhalla, New York, Oxnard, 
California, and Halifax, North Carolina, emphasize that the 
FRA's top priority must be to ensure the safe, reliable and 
efficient transportation of people and goods throughout the 
Nation.
    The Committee recommends $199,000,000 for Safety and 
Operations for fiscal year 2016, which is $4,800,000 less than 
the budget request and $12,130,000 more than the fiscal year 
2015 enacted level. The bill specifies that $15,900,000 shall 
remain available until expended to cover the cost of the 
Automated Track Inspection Program, the Railroad Safety 
Information System, the Southeastern Transportation Study, 
research and development activities, contract support, and 
Alaska Railroad liabilities. The increase in funding supports 
the annualization of fiscal year 2015 safety personnel, as well 
as several safety initiatives requested in fiscal year 2016 as 
described below. The Committee remains concerned about the 
difficulty FRA has experienced in achieving the current 
authorized staffing level in recent years, and appreciates that 
the agency is finally acting quickly to fill its authorized 
positions. The Committee is encouraged by FRA's recent 
progress, including its efforts to account for attrition in its 
hiring plans as well as pursuing alternative avenues to recruit 
and hire qualified individuals when there is a severe shortage 
of candidates or a critical hiring need.
    Safe Transport of Energy Products.--The Committee's 
recommendation includes an increase of $3,400,000 to support 
FRA's efforts to improve the safe transport of energy products. 
The STEP initiative supports additional crude oil safety 
inspectors, crude oil route safety managers, and tank car 
quality assurance specialists, as well as supports increased 
mileage of a dedicated Automated Track Inspection Program 
vehicle on routes with energy products traffic.
    Passenger Railroad Safety.--The Committee's recommendation 
includes an increase of $1,900,000 to improve passenger 
railroad safety. This initiative supports additional safety 
staff to help develop and implement passenger rail risk 
reduction system safety programs and additional passenger rail 
inspectors to conduct comprehensive safety culture and 
compliance reviews, as well as improve safety culture through 
the Clear Signal for Action program, a voluntary, non-punitive 
program for identification and mitigation of unsafe practices, 
and to study passenger rail electrification standards.
    Grade Crossing and Pedestrian Safety.--The Committee's 
recommendation includes an increase of $1,000,000 to reduce 
grade crossing incidents and increase pedestrian safety. This 
initiative supports additional grade crossing safety managers 
and trespass prevention managers, as well as for Operation 
Lifesaver, and to support a grade crossing and trespass 
prevention workshop.
    RRIF Administration and Oversight.--The Committee's 
recommendation includes an increase of $250,000 to support one 
additional RRIF financial specialist.
    Automated Track Inspection Program.--The Automated Track 
Inspection Program [ATIP] provides track geometry information, 
as well as other track-related performance data, to assess 
compliance with Federal Track Safety Standards. The data 
collected under ATIP is used by FRA inspectors and by railroads 
to ensure proper track maintenance and to assess track safety 
trends within the industry. The Committee supports FRA's 
efforts to expand the use of ATIP vehicles, including 
autonomous ATIP vehicles, to support the inspection of crude 
oil routes.

                   RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $39,100,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      39,250,000
House allowance.........................................      39,100,000
Committee recommendation................................      39,100,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,100,000 
for railroad Research and Development, which is $150,000 less 
than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level.
    Short Line Safety Institute.--Short Line railroads operate 
approximately 50,000 miles of track, which is one-third of the 
national railroad network. They are an important feeder system 
for the larger Class I railroads, helping connect local 
communities to the national railroad network. There are 550 
short line railroads operating in the United States, 73 of 
which currently handle some volume of crude oil. The safety 
management system of short lines is extremely varied. Many 
small railroads with limited personnel and limited financial 
capital need additional resources to conduct hazardous 
materials safety training and other operational safety 
assessments. The Committee supports FRA's efforts, in 
partnership with short line and regional railroads, to continue 
to build a stronger, sustainable safety culture in this segment 
of the rail industry. To date, several Class III railroads, 
including those that transport crude oil, have received safety 
conformance assessments in order to improve railroad safety 
culture. The Committee's recommendation includes $2,000,000 to 
further the Short Line Safety Institute's mission, including 
continued efforts to improve the safe transportation of crude 
oil and other hazardous materials by rail.
    Safe Transportation of LNG.--There has been an increased 
interest in transporting Liquefied Natural Gas [LNG] by 
railroad, both as a fuel to be transported for use elsewhere 
and as a fuel source to power locomotives. The Committee's 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the FRA, in 
collaboration with PHMSA, to accelerate its research and 
development on the safe transportation of LNG. This amount will 
allow the FRA to finish the work it began in fiscal year 2015 
as well as for reviewing international specifications.
    Tank Car Research.--The Committee's recommendation includes 
$500,000 to continue tank car research activities, including 
physical testing at the Transportation Technology Center.

       RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM

    The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 
[RRIF] program was established by Public Law 109-178 to provide 
direct loans and loan guarantees to State and local 
governments, Government-sponsored entities, and railroads. 
Credit assistance under the program may be used for 
rehabilitating or developing rail equipment and facilities. No 
Federal appropriation is required to implement the program, 
because a non-Federal partner may contribute the subsidy amount 
required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a 
credit risk premium. The Committee maintains bill language 
specifying that no new direct loans or loan guarantee 
commitments may be made using Federal funds for the payment of 
any credit premium amount during fiscal year 2016 with the 
exception of permissions granted under section 152 of this act. 
The Committee directs FRA to continue to provide a summary of 
loan activity for the preceding fiscal years in its fiscal year 
2017 budget justification. At a minimum, FRA should detail the 
number of loans pending and issued, and the processing time for 
these loans.

                         RAILROAD SAFETY GRANTS

Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................     $50,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Railroad Safety Grants account provides support for 
three rail safety grant programs as authorized by Public Law 
110-432. The Railroad Safety Infrastructure Improvement Grants 
program supports railroad infrastructure, including the 
acquisition, improvement, or rehabilitation of intermodal or 
rail equipment or facilities, including track, bridges, 
tunnels, yards, buildings, passenger stations, facilities, and 
maintenance and repair shops. The Railroad Safety Technology 
Grants program supports the deployment of train control 
technologies, train control component technologies, process-
based technologies, electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, 
rail integrity inspection systems, rail integrity warning 
systems, switch position indicators and monitors, remote 
control power switch technologies, track integrity circuit 
technologies, and other new or novel railroad safety 
technology. The Federal Grants to States for Highway-Rail Grade 
Crossing Safety program supports safety improvements, including 
the installation, repair, or improvement of highway-rail grade 
crossings, as well as enhanced public education and awareness 
activities to prevent and reduce injuries and fatalities along 
railroad rights-of-way.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Railroad 
Safety Grants account, which is $50,000,000 more than the 
budget request and $50,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level.
    Railroad Safety Infrastructure Improvement Grants.--The 
Committee recommends $25,000,000 for Railroad Safety 
Infrastructure Improvement Grants program, as authorized by 
section 418 of Public Law 110-432.
    Railroad Safety Technology Grants.--The Committee 
recommends $15,000,000 for the Railroad Safety Technology 
Grants program, as authorized by section 105 of Public Law 110-
432.
    Federal Grants to States for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 
Safety.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Federal 
Grants to States for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety 
program, for projects as defined in section 207 of Public Law 
110-432.

          THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$1,390,000,000 for Amtrak, which is equal to the fiscal year 
2015 enacted level. The administration's budget request would 
shift funding for Amtrak into a new $2,450,000,000 Current 
Passenger Rail Service program that would be supported by a new 
dedicated Rail Account of the Transportation Trust Fund.
    Budget, Business Plan, and the 5-Year Financial Plan.--The 
Committee maintains requirements for Amtrak to submit a 
business plan and 5-Year Financial Plan for fiscal year 2016. 
The Corporation shall continue to submit a budget request for 
fiscal year 2017 to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations in similar format and substance to those 
submitted by executive agencies of the Federal Government.
    FRA Grant Administration and Report Streamlining.--The 
Committee recognizes that Amtrak fields a myriad of grant 
requirements from the FRA. The Committee is supportive of 
robust oversight by the FRA; however, to the extent 
practicable, the FRA is encouraged to work with Amtrak to 
reduce duplication and streamline their report requirements.
    Section 209.--States with intercity passenger rail service 
under 750 miles in length have assumed a far greater share of 
the cost of the service as required by section 209 of the 
Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2008 [PRIIA]. 
In 2012, the Surface Transportation Board [STB] determined that 
a methodology agreed upon by Amtrak and most of the affected 
States to establish and allocate costs for State-supported 
Amtrak routes met the requirements of section 209; and the STB 
directed Amtrak and the affected States to implement that 
methodology. However, much work remains in order to finalize 
that implementation. To this end, the Committee recognizes the 
importance of Amtrak and the States having an open dialogue and 
reaching a workable agreement on implementation of the section 
209 methodology. Further, the Committee strongly urges both 
Amtrak and the States to continue to meet in person, along with 
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services under the 
sponsorship of the STB when appropriate, in order to reach 
closure on the remaining issues. The Committee recognizes that 
this is a hardship on many of the States; therefore, the bill 
allows the FRA to use its financial resources to provide 
assistance for administrative purposes such as travel to 
facilitation/negotiation sessions, to States, the District of 
Columbia, and other public entities for the implementation of 
section 209. In addition, the Committee directs Amtrak to 
provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with 
an annual report on the status of State contracts and payments.
    Integrating Service.--The Committee directs the FRA, in 
coordination with Amtrak, to identify those State-supported 
routes that are, at the time of enactment of this act, not 
physically connected to any other Amtrak route, service or 
station on Amtrak's rail network, and to subsequently conduct a 
study on the feasibility of physically integrating such routes 
into Amtrak's network. This study should include an analysis of 
projected ridership and revenue levels, impacts on service, and 
operating and capital costs, as well as the local economic 
impact of establishing an integrated service. In addition, the 
study should examine the infrastructure improvements necessary 
to facilitate an integrated service. The FRA is encouraged to 
focus its efforts on integration options that are most cost 
effective, such as the utilization of railroad lines or rights-
of-way that already exist, as opposed to options that would 
require the acquisition of property not currently used for rail 
transportation or the construction of a new bridge or tunnel 
where one does not currently exist. Further, in conducting its 
study, the FRA and Amtrak should consult with the appropriate 
sponsors of the State-supported routes throughout the process. 
The Committee directs the FRA to submit its study to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations, as well as the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation within 300 
days after enactment of this act.
    Section 212.--The Committee commends the Northeast Corridor 
[NEC] Commission for adopting a new framework for regional 
collaboration and cost sharing among passenger rail operators 
on the corridor. It is the Committee's expectation that, in 
fiscal year 2016, Amtrak and the NEC commuter railroads will 
implement and comply with the terms of the Cost Allocation 
Policy adopted by the Commission in fiscal year 2015. As such, 
any funds made available to Amtrak under this act, in order to 
support the Northeast Corridor, shall be used in accordance 
with the terms of the policy.
    Promoting Rail and Airport Connections.--The Committee 
supports efforts to improve intercity passenger rail 
connections at commercial airports that are adjacent to the 
mainline of the Northeast Corridor [NEC] and not currently 
served by Amtrak and directs FRA, in coordination with Amtrak, 
to study the feasibility of establishing service at such 
airports. Such an assessment of feasibility should include 
consideration of how intercity passenger service may complement 
existing or planned commuter passenger rail service at such 
stations and analyze the projected ridership and revenue 
levels, impacts on network service levels and performance, 
operating and capital costs, and local economic impacts 
associated with any service options.
    Update Plan for Restoration of Service.--The Committee 
directs Amtrak to update its Gulf Coast Service Plan report as 
mandated by Section 226 of Public Law 110-432. This updated 
report should take into consideration population and employment 
growth since 2009; assess the local economic impact from the 
reestablished service and the potential for future development 
along the route that could potentially help support the 
service; and take into account the potential for utilizing 
existing rolling stock that is being replaced by Amtrak 
elsewhere via new acquisitions. In addition, the updated report 
should focus on the section of the route that currently does 
not have Amtrak passenger service. Amtrak shall determine with 
the host railroads the projected cost of any infrastructure 
investments to accommodate restoration of service. This 
includes installation of positive train control if required 
solely because of the restoration of Amtrak service and 
installation of a signal system on portions of the route 
outside terminal areas on which there is no signal system at 
the time of enactment. The Committee directs Amtrak to submit 
its updated report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation within 180 days after 
enactment of this act.
    Emergency Preparedness and Response.--Following the tragic 
accident of Amtrak Train 188 on May 12, 2015 in Philadelphia, 
it appears that first responders to the scene were timely, 
well-coordinated, and deeply committed to the safety of 
passengers and crew. However, there were some reports of 
confusion about the process for notification to passengers and 
family members, as well as the process for the return of 
personal property and claims.
    Under FRA regulations, Amtrak is required to implement 
emergency preparedness plans and conduct full-scale emergency 
simulations every year. Amtrak's Emergency Management and 
Corporate Security [EMCS] department oversees preparedness and 
training programs so that Amtrak can provide for the safety of 
its passengers and employees in the case of an emergency. 
Amtrak also works closely with the National Transportation 
Safety Board [NTSB], which plays a role in coordinating support 
for passengers and family members in the event of a passenger 
rail accident resulting in a major loss of life. In addition to 
investigating the cause of the accident, NTSB provides 
information about its investigation to passengers' family 
members; helps them access support services; and coordinates 
local, State and Federal assets for disaster response and 
family assistance. NTSB also provides advice to Amtrak and 
other transportation modes on planning for family assistance in 
the case of an accident.
    The Committee directs Amtrak to fully participate in the 
NTSB's post-accident evaluation of passenger support services 
that examines the roles and responsibilities of each agency, 
where there were gaps in communication both internal to each 
organization and with external stakeholders and victims. The 
Committee further directs Amtrak to revise its emergency 
response preparedness plans to incorporate lessons learned from 
the post-accident evaluation. Likewise, the Committee directs 
the NTSB to reevaluate its own policies and procedures in light 
of lessons learned as part of their usual post-accident review. 
Finally, the Committee directs Amtrak to ensure that its 
contact centers, customer support desk and incident hotline 
teams are trained on the revised procedures so that accident 
victims and their families are supported in these crisis 
situations.
    Passenger Rail in the Bakken Region.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance of improving the financial viability 
of Amtrak's Empire Builder and the growth in demand for 
passenger rail services in the Bakken region. The Committee 
directs FRA, in coordination with Amtrak, to reevaluate 
previous Amtrak Empire Builder feasibility studies that were 
conducted within the last 4 years which prove a financial 
benefit by adding a rail stop that generates revenue and 
reduces operating costs on the Empire Builder route. In 
addition, the evaluation should examine the infrastructure 
improvements necessary to facilitate the expansion of such 
services. The Committee directs Amtrak to report its findings 
and provide a copy of the feasibility study to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 1 year after 
the date of enactment of this act.

    OPERATING GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $250,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................................
House allowance.........................................     288,500,000
Committee recommendation................................     288,500,000

    The Committee recommends $288,500,000 for Operating Grants 
to Amtrak, which is $38,500,000 above the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level. The administration's budget request would shift 
funding for Amtrak into a new $2,450,000,000 Current Passenger 
Rail Service program that would be supported by a new dedicated 
Rail Account of the Transportation Trust Fund.
    The Committee directs FRA to make a timely disbursement of 
funds no more frequently than once per quarter to maximize the 
Corporation's ability to efficiently manage its cash flow. Each 
year, Amtrak is responsible for significant one-time cash 
outflows at the beginning of the calendar year. In order to 
help facilitate these payments, the Committee encourages the 
FRA to release adequate funding in the first quarter of the 
fiscal year in order to efficiently manage Amtrak's financial 
obligations in a timely manner.
    Food and Beverage.--The Committee continues to be 
encouraged by Amtrak's efforts at reducing food and beverage 
losses, including the various initiatives outlined in Amtrak's 
5-Year Strategic Plan to eliminate losses on its food and 
beverage services and in Amtrak's 5-Year Financial Plan. Amtrak 
listed several cash management and revenue generating 
initiatives that it is undertaking in fiscal year 2015 in order 
to reduce food and beverage losses, as well as additional 
pilots planned for fiscal year 2016. Through a combination of 
labor optimization, improvements to on-board services and 
logistics, product development and supply chain efficiencies, 
ticket revenue allocation, and technology enhancements and 
process improvements, Amtrak projects that it will produce a 
net loss of zero on its food and beverage services by October 
2018.
    The Committee directs Amtrak to provide a report to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 120 days after 
enactment of this act comparing the actual fiscal year 2015 
savings with what Amtrak projected the savings to be in its 5-
year plans. In addition, the report should include an update on 
the progress that Amtrak has made in reducing waste, fraud and 
abuse as related to food and beverage service since the 2011 
Amtrak OIG report on this topic.
    Discounted Fares.--The bill continues a prohibition against 
funding on routes where Amtrak is offering 50 percent or more 
off the normal, peak fare.

  CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 
                              CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2015....................................  $1,140,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................................
House allowance.........................................     859,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,101,500,000

    The Committee recommends $1,101,500,000 for Capital and 
Debt Service Grants to Amtrak, which is $38,500,000 below the 
fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The administration's budget 
request would shift funding for Amtrak into a new 
$2,450,000,000 Current Passenger Rail Service program that 
would be supported by a new dedicated Rail Account of the 
Transportation Trust Fund.
    ADA Compliance.--The Committee continues to believe that 
compliance with the requirements of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act [ADA] is essential to ensuring that all people 
have equal access to transportation services. Amtrak reports 
that it has some degree of ADA responsibility at 369 stations, 
that it has provided mobile lifts at the 96 stations that have 
less than 7,500 riders annually, and that approximately 194 of 
the remaining 273 stations will need some type of set-back 
level boarding solution. Many of the platforms in these 
stations are owned by freight railroads and reconciling the 
requirements of existing freight traffic with the needs of 
passengers is a complex challenge. The Committee encourages 
Amtrak to use its funds to address compliance requirements that 
are the responsibility of other parties at the stations it 
serves where the work involved is not more than 10 percent of 
the cost of all ADA compliance work at that station, and where 
doing so would expedite completion of its compliance efforts 
and be a more efficient use of resources than compelling those 
parties to act. With the level of funding recommended by the 
Committee, Amtrak intends to advance construction at a total of 
50 stations and intends to advance planning and design 
requirements for another 99 stations. By the end of the fiscal 
year 2015, Amtrak expects to complete work on a total of 36 
stations.
    Northeast Corridor [NEC] Infrastructure Needs.--The 
Committee acknowledges that the NEC has a state-of-good repair 
backlog of more than $20,000,000,000. This includes several key 
components of electrical and signal systems that date back to 
the 1930s as well as critical bridges and tunnels that are more 
than 100 years old. According to the NEC Commission, the loss 
of the NEC for a single day could cost the country $100,000,000 
in added congestion, productivity losses, and other 
transportation impacts. In order to address this challenge, 
Amtrak proposed $555,800,000 for a NEC capital grant program. 
While the Committee is sympathetic to the NEC state-of-good 
repair, under current budgetary constraints, the Committee can 
simply not afford to appropriate additional funding for a new 
grant program. Instead, section 153 of the bill makes prior 
year unobligated funding available for Capital Grants to the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation for shared use 
infrastructure on the NEC.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    Section 150 allows the Secretary to receive and use cash or 
spare parts to repair and replace damaged track inspection 
cars.
    Section 151 limits overtime payments to employees at Amtrak 
to $35,000 per employee. However, Amtrak's president may waive 
this restriction for specific employees for safety or 
operational efficiency reasons. If the cap is waived, Amtrak 
must notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
within 30 days and specify the reason for such waiver.
    Section 152 makes $4,201,385 in prior year unobligated 
funding available to assist class II and class III railroads 
with expenses related to applying for loans and loan guarantees 
under the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 
program.
    Section 153 makes $16,922,000 in prior year unobligated 
funding available for Capital Grants to the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation for shared use infrastructure on the 
Northeast Corridor. For such grants, the FRA shall take into 
consideration a higher local match when approving Amtrak's 
grant request.

                     Federal Transit Administration


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Transit Administration was established as a 
component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization 
Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred 
most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit 
Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 
missions of the Federal Transit Administration [FTA] are: to 
help develop improved mass transportation systems and 
practices; to support the inclusion of public transportation in 
community and regional planning to support economic 
development; to provide mobility for Americans who depend on 
transit for transportation in both metropolitan and rural 
areas; to maximize the productivity and efficiency of 
transportation systems; and to provide assistance to State and 
local governments and agencies in financing such services and 
systems.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level 
of $10,462,653,000 is provided for FTA programs in fiscal year 
2016. The recommendation is $7,936,747,000 less than the budget 
request and $424,234,000 less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $105,933,000
Budget estimate, 2016\1\................................     114,400,000
House allowance.........................................      97,933,000
Committee recommendation................................     107,000,000

\1\The Administration requested this funding as a set-aside within the 
Formula Grants account.

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $107,000,000 from the 
general fund for the agency's salaries and administrative 
expenses. The recommended level of funding is $7,400,000 less 
than the budget request, which assumed that FTA's 
administrative expenses would be provided as a set-aside within 
the Formula Grants account. The Committee recommendation is 
also $1,067,000 above the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. This 
funding level will support new responsibilities for safety 
oversight assigned to FTA in the most recent authorization act, 
MAP-21, as well as cover the costs of salaries and inflation.
    The Committee has recognized for several years now that 
FTA's staffing has not kept up with its increasing 
responsibilities. Successive evaluations have concluded that 
FTA requires additional staff to support a steadily growing 
workload and improve its ability to perform project oversight, 
contract administration, and technical assistance. The 
Committee acknowledges MAP-21 added significant new burdens, 
including standing up a new safety office. The recommendation 
supports additional staffing for the Office of Transit Safety 
and Oversight.
    The Committee again notes the lack of information about the 
additional resources requested in the Administrative Expenses 
section of the congressional justification. Although FTA 
provides this information upon request, the cost, location, 
composition and other details that support the budget should be 
included in the justification. The Committee directs FTA to 
provide this information in its justification for any staff 
increases it requests in future years. In addition, the 
Committee directs FTA to provide information on the staffing 
and funding requirements of each individual FTA office in its 
fiscal year 2017 submission.
    Project Management Oversight [PMO] Activities.--The 
Committee directs FTA to continue to submit to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations the quarterly PMO reports 
for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
    Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].--MAP-21 requires 
that FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on 
Banking, 30 days before executing a full funding grant 
agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, the Committee directs FTA to 
submit the following information: (1) a copy of the proposed 
full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual Federal 
appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly and 
total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated 
for existing FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2019; (4) a 
detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and 
anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization, by 
individual project; (5) a financial analysis of the project's 
cost and sponsor's ability to finance the project, which shall 
be conducted by an independent examiner and which shall include 
an assessment of the capital cost estimate and finance plan; 
(6) the source and security of all public and private sector 
financing; (7) the project's operating plan, which enumerates 
the project's future revenue and ridership forecasts; and (8) a 
listing of all planned contingencies and possible risks 
associated with the project.
    The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing 30 days before 
approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any full 
funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to all changes 
shall include any budget revisions or program changes that 
materially alter the project as originally stipulated in the 
FFGA, including any proposed change in rail car procurement.
    The Committee directs FTA to continue to provide a monthly 
Capital Investment Grant program update to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, detailing the status of each 
project. This update should include anticipated milestone 
schedules for advancing projects, especially those within 2 
years of a proposed full funding grant agreement. It should 
also highlight and explain any potential cost and schedule 
changes affecting projects. In addition, FTA should notify the 
Committees 10 days before any project in the Capital Investment 
Grant program is given approval by FTA to advance to project 
development or engineering.

                             FORMULA GRANTS

                  (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Obligation
                                                           limitation
                                                          (trust fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2015..................................    $8,595,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................    13,914,400,000
House allowance.......................................     8,595,000,000
Committee recommendation..............................     8,595,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends limiting obligations in the 
transit formula and bus grants account in fiscal year 2016 to 
$8,595,000,000. The recommendation is $5,319,400,000 less than 
the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level. The recommendation is also consistent with the currently 
authorized level under MAP-21.
    The Committee recommends $9,500,000,000 in authority to 
liquidate contract authorizations. This amount is sufficient to 
cover outstanding obligations from this account.
    The following table displays the distribution of obligation 
limitation among the program categories of formula grants:

                 DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FORMULA GRANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Fiscal year 2016
   Formula grants  (obligation                                             -------------------------------------
           limitation)                Section  number    Fiscal year  2015    Administration       Committee
                                                                                 proposal          assumption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit Oriented Development.....  20005(b)............        $10,000,000        $10,234,449        $10,000,000
Planning Programs................  5305................        128,800,000        131,819,705        128,800,000
Urbanized Area Formula Grants....  5307................      4,458,650,000      4,563,182,693      4,458,650,000
Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and   5310................        258,300,000        264,355,823        258,300,000
 Individuals with Disabilities.
Formula Grants for Rural Areas...  5311................        607,800,000        622,049,823        607,800,000
Bus Testing Facility.............  5318................          3,000,000          3,070,335          3,000,000
National Transit Institute.......  5322(d).............          5,000,000          5,117,225          5,000,000
National Transit Database........  5335................          3,850,000          3,940,263          3,850,000
State of Good Repair Grants......  5337................      2,165,900,000      5,719,000,000      2,165,900,000
Bus and Bus Facilities Formula     5339................        427,800,000      1,939,000,000        427,800,000
 Grants.
Growing States and High Density    5340................        525,900,000        538,229,684        525,900,000
 States Formula Grants.
Administrative Expenses..........  ....................  .................        114,400,000  .................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total......................  ....................      8,595,000,000     13,914,400,000      8,595,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transit Formula Allocations.--The Committee continues to 
have significant concerns over the number of localities that 
are negatively impacted by changes to the funds distribution 
methodology as contained in MAP-21. Under the current formula, 
the funds for bus replacement, purchase, and rehabilitation are 
severely reduced from previous years. This reduction is 
disproportionately impacting medium and smaller sized transit 
agencies whose focus is on bus service, and in those regions 
and States with older bus fleets. According to the FTA, 41 
States and territories received a lower average allocation 
under the new section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities (formula) 
Grant program in fiscal years 2013-2014 than they did under the 
prior Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities program during fiscal 
years 2010-2012.
    The Committee encourages the Department to work with the 
authorizing committees of jurisdiction when crafting the next 
surface bill to help these impacted communities with their bus 
replacement needs, without negatively impacting those States 
that now receive a higher allocation under the current formula 
program. In addition, in order to further assist communities 
with bus replacement and repair, the Department is urged to 
work with the authorizing committees of jurisdiction to 
establish a competitive Bus State of Good Repair program.

                            TRANSIT RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $33,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      33,000,000
House allowance.........................................      26,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      32,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $32,500,000 for the transit 
research account. The recommendation is $500,000 below the 
fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Administration's budget 
request shifted these activities into a new Transit Research 
and Training program supported with mandatory resources paid 
out of the Mass Transit Account of a Transportation Trust Fund. 
Of the total, $30,000,000 is for activities authorized under 
section 5312 of MAP-21. The Committee recommendation allocates 
the balance of funds, $2,500,000, to the Transit Cooperative 
Research Program authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5313.
    Improving Rural Transit Access.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of ensuring safe, private transportation is made 
available for seniors and people who do not drive, especially 
in small and rural communities where distance and low 
population density make traditional mass transportation 
difficult. The efficiencies of information management can help 
to provide on-demand transportation services and bring together 
underutilized private transportation capacity through ride 
share, car share, volunteer transport, and private community 
transport. The Committee encourages FTA to consider innovative 
transportation networks that leverage community volunteerism 
and private resources in various forms to access underutilized 
private transportation capacity to promote inclusive community 
mobility and provide transportation for seniors and 
disadvantaged populations in small and rural communities. 
Further, the Committee supports the capacity of consumers to 
plan their travel safely, independently and reliably through a 
variety of techniques and tools.

                   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2015....................................      $4,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      27,000,000
House allowance.........................................       5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,153,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $3,153,000 for technical 
assistance and training. The recommendation is $1,347,000 below 
the fiscal year 2015 level. The Administration's budget request 
shifted these activities into a new Transit Research and 
Training program supported with mandatory resources paid out of 
the Mass Transit Account of a Transportation Trust Fund. Of the 
total, $2,653,000 is for activities authorized under section 
5314 of MAP-21. The Committee recommendation allocates the 
balance of funds, $500,000, to the Human Resources and Training 
activities authorized under 49 United States Code 5322. The 
Committee is sympathetic to the Department's proposal to fund a 
substantial workforce development program within FTA, but is 
not in the position to make such a commitment while 
discretionary spending remains constrained.

                       CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2015....................................  $2,120,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................   3,250,000,000
House allowance.........................................   1,921,395,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,585,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Under the Capital Investment Grants [CIG] program, FTA 
provides grants to fund the building of new fixed guideway 
systems or extensions and improvements to existing fixed 
guideway systems. Eligible services include light rail, rapid 
rail (heavy rail), commuter rail, and bus rapid transit. The 
program has long included funding for two categories of 
eligible projects authorized under section 5309 of title 49 of 
the United States Code: New Starts and Small Starts. New Starts 
are projects with a Federal share of at least $75,000,000 or 
more and a total capital cost of $250,000,000 or more. By 
comparison, Small Starts are projects with a Federal share 
under this section of $75,000,000 or less and total capital 
cost of $250,000,000 or less. The most recent reauthorization, 
MAP-21, added a third category of eligible projects under this 
section: Core Capacity. These are projects that will expand 
capacity by at least 10 percent in existing fixed-guideway 
transit corridors that are already at or above capacity today, 
or are expected to be at or above capacity within 5 years.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,585,000,000 for capital 
investment grants, which is $535,000,000 below the fiscal year 
2015 enacted level. The Administration requested $3,250,000,000 
for capital investment grants funded by mandatory resources 
paid out of the Mass Transit Account of a Transportation Trust 
Fund.
    The Committee's recommendation includes $1,250,000,000 to 
cover the cost of existing full funding grant agreements in 
fiscal year 2016. In addition, $210,000,000 is provided for new 
starts projects that the Administration has recommended for 
full funding grant agreements in its budget request. For such 
projects, FTA is directed to give funding priority to projects 
that require a Federal share of 40 percent or less.
    The Committee recommendation also includes $75,000,000 for 
core capacity projects, $30,000,000 for small starts projects, 
$5,000,000 for the pilot program of expedited project delivery 
as authorized under section 20008(b) of MAP-21 and clarified by 
section 165 of the bill, and $15,000,000 for oversight 
activities.
    In addition, the Committee encourages the FTA to take into 
consideration a system's state of good repair, as certified by 
the sponsor, prior to forwarding a full funding grant agreement 
or small starts grant agreement for CIG projects that expand a 
system's footprint.

             PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     $25,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Due to funding constraints, the Committee is unable to 
include funding for the emergency relief program in fiscal year 
2016.

      GRANTS TO THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $150,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     150,000,000
House allowance.........................................     100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     150,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for 
grants to WMATA for capital and preventive maintenance 
expenses, including pressing safety-related investments. These 
grants are in addition to the funding local jurisdictions have 
committed to providing to WMATA. Despite this continued Federal 
support, the Committee will not accept the status quo at WMATA.
    Leadership.--For nearly 6 months, WMATA has been without a 
permanent Chief Executive Office and General Manager. In 
addition, WMATA's search for this individual has been suspended 
for the last 3 months. The Committee compels the WMATA Board of 
Directors to begin a new search for its top executive 
immediately.
    Yellow Line Smoke Incident at L'Enfant Plaza Station.--The 
Committee remains deeply troubled by the Yellow Line smoke 
incident at L'Enfant Plaza Station on January 12, 2015 that 
killed 1 passenger, critically injured 2 riders and injured 
over 80. This deadly incident revealed WMATA still lacks 
established safety protocols to protect its ridership. It also 
revealed the lack of coordination between WMATA and local first 
responders. The Committee directs WMATA to provide the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report each quarter 
detailing its progress completing each of the National 
Transportation Safety Board's existing and forthcoming 
recommendations. This report also should include updates on the 
outstanding recommendations from the deadly Fort Totten 
accident 6 years ago and the deadly Dupont Circle Station 
accident involving a WMATA employee in 2006. The Committee is 
especially interested in the replacement of the 1000-series 
cars.
    The Committee commends the FTA's Office of Safety and 
Oversight for initiating a safety management inspection of 
WMATA in March 2015. This audit examined WMATA's safety culture 
including safety procedures and protocols. The Committee is 
very concerned about the audit's troubling findings that 
indicate a lot more work must be done to improve safety at 
WMATA. Therefore, the bill requires the Secretary to approve 
grants provided under this heading to WMATA only after 
certifying that progress has been made to improve WMATA's 
safety management system.
    Financial Management.--Last year, an FTA audit reported 
material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in WMATA's 
internal financial controls. In response to these serious 
findings, FTA suspended WMATA's ability to automatically draw 
down its Federal grants; until these weaknesses are corrected, 
FTA will review and approve each WMATA request for 
reimbursement. WMATA accepted all of the audit's findings and 
recommendations and responded with a corrective action plan. 
The Committee is advised FTA has reviewed and closed 33 of 38 
corrective actions. Another two are under review and the 
remaining three are due to FTA on June 30, 2015. The bill 
requires the Secretary to approve grants provided under this 
heading to WMATA only after certifying that WMATA is making 
progress toward full implementation of the corrective actions 
identified in this audit.
    The bill also directs the Secretary to provide these grants 
to WMATA only after receiving and reviewing a request for each 
specific project to be funded under this heading. The bill 
requires the Secretary to determine that WMATA has placed the 
highest priority on funding projects that will improve the 
safety of its public transit system before approving these 
grants, using the National Transportation Safety Board and 
Federal Transit Administration's recommendations as a guide.
    Wireless Service Extension.--The Committee reluctantly 
provides another 1 year extension for the wireless service 
requirement in the authorization statute. The Committee is 
aware of the troubles WMATA has had meeting this requirement. 
However, it has been nearly 7 years. The deadly Yellow Line 
smoke incident sadly demonstrated the need for wireless service 
in the system's tunnels. The Committee directs WMATA to provide 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report each 
quarter detailing its progress installing wireless service. 
Without significant progress toward completing this work, the 
Committee will not be inclined to consider a subsequent 
extension for the completion of this large safety project.

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

    Section 160 exempts authority previously made available for 
programs of the FTA under section 5338 of title 49, United 
States Code, from the obligation limitations in this act.
    Section 161 requires that funds appropriated or limited by 
this act for specific projects not obligated by September 30, 
2020, and other recoveries, be directed to projects eligible to 
use the funds for the purposes for which they were originally 
provided.
    Section 162 allows funds appropriated before October 1, 
2015, that remain available for expenditure to be transferred 
to the most recent appropriation heading.
    Section 163 provides an exemption from the charter bus 
regulations for portions of the State of Washington.
    Section 164 Permits arctic vessels as satisfying the 
requirements under 49 U.S.C. 5334 and 2 CFR 200.313.
    Section 165 Clarifies section 20008(b) of MAP-21.
    Section 166 Rescinds $10,000,000 in prior year unobligated 
bus and bus facilities funds.

             Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                       OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

                    (HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $32,042,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      36,400,000
House allowance.........................................      29,042,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,400,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $28,400,000 for the operations, 
maintenance, and asset renewal of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. 
This amount is $8,000,000 less than the budget request and 
$3,642,000 less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
    The Committee recommendation includes funding to replace 
the agency's tugboats but does not provide additional funding 
for the vessel vacuum mooring system. The Committee directs 
SLSDC to continue to submit an annual report to the Senate and 
House Appropriations Committees, not later than April 30 of 
each year, summarizing the activities of the ARP during the 
immediate preceding fiscal year.

                        Maritime Administration


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                       MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $186,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     211,000,000
House allowance.........................................     186,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     186,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $186,000,000 
for the MSP. This amount is $25,000,000 less than the budget 
request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The 
recommended appropriation provides sufficient funds to satisfy 
the fully authorized payment level for fiscal year 2016.

                        OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $148,050,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     184,637,000
House allowance.........................................     164,158,000
Committee recommendation................................     170,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $170,000,000 
for Operations and Training at MARAD for fiscal year 2016 to be 
distributed between agency operations, the United States 
Merchant Marine Academy, and State maritime academies as 
outlined in the chart below. This amount is $21,950,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and $14,637,000 less 
than the budget request.

                         MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year
                                                            2016 Senate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy............................     $82,889,000
    Academy Operations..................................      64,889,000
    Capital Improvements................................      15,000,000
    Facilities Maintenance, Repair and Equipment........       3,000,000
State Maritime Academies................................      33,400,000
    SMA Direct Payments.................................       3,000,000
    Student Incentive Payments..........................       2,400,000
    Schoolship Maintenance and Repair...................      22,000,000
    Fuel Assistance Payments............................       1,000,000
    National Security Multi-Mission Vehicle Design......       5,000,000
MARAD Operations........................................      53,711,000
    Headquarter Operations..............................      46,711,000
    Environment and Technology Grants...................       2,000,000
    Marine Highways Grants..............................       5,000,000
                                                         ---------------
      TOTAL.............................................     170,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Short Sea Shipping Program.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $5,000,000 for the Short Sea Shipping program, 
commonly known as the Marine Highway program. Projects funded 
by this grant program will help mitigate landside congestion, 
encourage shipper utilization, improve port and landside 
infrastructure, and develop marine transportation strategies by 
State and local governments.
    National Security Multi-Mission Vessel [NSMV].--The 
Committee supports MARAD's efforts to develop a replacement 
vessel for the six State Maritime Academy training ships, 
including the 53-year-old training ship Empire State. The 
Committee provides $5,000,000 for short-term planning 
activities, including study of requirements alternatives, cost-
tradeoffs, cost analysis, schedule, acquisitions strategy, and 
vessel design; and long-term planning activities, including 
study of program delivery strategy and production timetables 
for the incremental replacement of the current academy training 
ships. The Committee directs MARAD to develop a detailed plan 
and schedule for vessel replacement, including a cost 
comparison and a cost-benefit analysis, and to provide a report 
on its recommendation for vessel replacement to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Committee also directs 
the agency to consult with the Navy, Coast Guard, and any other 
relevant agencies that may benefit from the NSMV prior to 
submitting any future budget request related to the design, 
construction, acquisition, or conversion of a replacement 
vessel.
    Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment at the United States 
Merchant Marine Academy.--The Committee remains concerned about 
the rate of incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment 
at the Academy. The most recent survey of sexual harassment and 
sexual assault from the 2013-2014 academic year shows a 
continuation of the disturbing results at the Academy seen in 
prior surveys. Despite 35 midshipmen reporting sexual assault 
on the survey, only 4 midshipmen reported their incidents to 
Academy leadership.
    It is imperative that senior leadership throughout the 
Department make improving conditions at the Academy a top 
priority. The Academy has made strides by hiring a new Sexual 
Assault Response Coordinator with relevant experience and 
knowledge to address these issues, but the change in culture 
must be addressed by the entire Academy. While 75 percent of 
midshipmen believe that senior leadership, staff, and faculty 
make an honest and reasonable attempt to stop sexual harassment 
and sexual assault, female midshipmen did not think that the 
training provided by the Academy during the survey year was 
helping. The Committee recommendation includes funding for new 
staff focused on developing leadership and providing student 
life support to help address these issues. The Committee 
further directs the Secretary to provide the annual report 
required by section 3507 of Public Law 110-417 to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than January 12, 
2016.
    United States Merchant Marine Academy Board of Visitors.--
The Committee directs MARAD to provide full support to the 
United States Merchant Marine Academy's Board of Visitors 
[BOV], including by supporting the annual visit required in 46 
U.S.C. 51312. MARAD should coordinate with the BOV, once 
appointed, to develop and implement a charter, support regular 
meetings and briefings, and address questions and concerns. The 
Committee urges MARAD to seek additional support from the 
Department of the Navy since the USMMA is a leading 
commissioning source for reserve naval officers. Midshipmen 
should be prepared to service the Nation throughout the 
transportation industry, including on our Great Lakes and our 
inland rivers and waterways. The Secretary is also encouraged 
to form research and training partnerships with University 
Transportation Centers focusing on maritime and multi-modal 
transportation research.
    United States Merchant Marine Academy Capital Improvements 
Plan [CIP].--The Committee once again directs the Administrator 
to provide an annual report by March 31, 2016, on the current 
status of the CIP. The report should include a list of all 
projects that have received funding and all proposed projects 
that the Academy intends to initiate within the next 5 years: 
cost overruns and cost savings for each active project; 
specific target dates for project completion; delays and the 
cause of delays; schedule changes; up-to-date cost projections 
for each project; and any other deviations from the previous 
year's CIP.
    Environment and Compliance.--The Committee commends MARAD's 
initiative to support the domestic maritime industry's efforts 
to comply with emerging international and domestic 
environmental regulatory requirements. The Committee directs 
MARAD to notify the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations not less than 3 business days before grant, 
contract, or cooperative agreement is announced by the 
Department or MARAD for the maritime environment and technology 
assistance program as authorized by 46 U.S.C. 50307.

                     ASSISTANCE TO SMALL SHIPYARDS

Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................      $5,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    As authorized under section 54101 of title 46, the 
Assistance to Small Shipyards program provides assistance in 
the form of grants, loans, and loan guarantees to small 
shipyards for capital improvements and training programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for 
assistance to small shipyards. This level of funding is 
$5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and the 
President's request. Funding for this program is intended to 
help small shipyards improve the efficiency of their operations 
by providing funding for equipment and other facility upgrades. 
The funding recommended by the Committee will help improve the 
competitiveness of our Nation's small shipyards, as well as 
workforce training and apprenticeships in communities dependent 
upon maritime transportation.

                             SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2015....................................      $4,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................       8,000,000
House allowance.........................................       4,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,000,000 for 
MARAD's Ship Disposal program. This level of funding is equal 
to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and $4,000,000 below the 
budget request. This level of funding, in addition to the 
anticipated carryover from previous appropriations and receipts 
from the sale of vessels, is sufficient to meet the terms and 
conditions of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet settlement and 
continued activities related to the NS Savannah. The total 
number of obsolete ships not yet under contract and awaiting 
disposal is down to 15. This is a historic low for the program.

              MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM [TITLE XI]

Appropriations, 2015....................................      $3,100,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................       3,135,000
House allowance.........................................       3,135,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,135,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides an appropriation of $8,135,000 for 
the maritime guaranteed loan title XI program, of which 
$3,135,000 shall be used for administrative expenses of the 
maritime loan guarantee program. This level of funding is 
$5,000,000 more than the President's budget request and 
$5,035,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The 
loan guarantee amount of $5,000,000, in addition to unobligated 
balances currently available, is sufficient to meet the cost of 
all current pending applications before the Department. The 
Committee directs the agency to move quickly to approve all 
pending applications and continue to proactively monitor all 
guaranteed loans that may be at risk of default. The Committee 
recognizes the importance that the title XI program provides 
for the advancement of shipbuilding, aiding the U.S.-flag 
fleet, and sustainment of jobs for this critical sector of our 
national defense.

           ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

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

         Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

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

                          OPERATIONAL EXPENSES

                         (PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $22,225,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      22,500,000
House allowance.........................................      21,225,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $22,500,000 for this account, of 
which $1,500,000 may be transferred to the Office of Pipeline 
Safety for Information Grants to Communities. The Committee's 
recommendation is equal to the budget request and $275,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.

                       HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $52,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      64,254,000
House allowance.........................................      60,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      49,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $49,000,000 
for hazardous materials safety, of which $2,300,000 shall 
remain available until September 30, 2018. The amount provided 
is $15,254,000 less than the administration's budget request 
and $3,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. 
The Committee's recommendation does not provide additional 
funding for the Risk Management Framework and does not provide 
any new full-time equivalent [FTE], but fully funds the 
additional safety and inspection enforcement staff provided in 
the previous fiscal year. The recommendation does not continue 
the one-time increase of $4,700,000 provided in the previous 
fiscal year for research and development activities and directs 
the agency to prioritize these funds for research activities on 
the safe transportation of energy products, including crude 
oil, ethanol, and liquefied natural gas, and to coordinate its 
efforts with FRA to avoid any overlap of responsibility and 
duplication of projects.
    Crude Oil Shipment Across Various Modes of 
Transportation.--In light of the drastic increase in the 
transportation of crude by rail from 9,500 carloads in 2008 to 
650,000 carloads in 2014, and the recent catastrophic oil train 
derailments, including the disaster in Quebec, Canada in 2013 
that claimed the lives of 47 people, the derailment of a train 
carrying 3 million gallons of crude oil in West Virginia, in 
February, and the March oil train derailment in Galena, 
Illinois, that narrowly avoided the Mississippi River, the 
Committee directs the Secretary to analyze the comparative 
safety of shipping oil by rail, pipeline, or truck and report 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 
days of enactment of this act. The report should include the 
total volume of oil spilled and the total volume of oil shipped 
by each mode of transportation over each of the past 10 years 
as well as future estimates of oil shipment volumes by each 
mode of transportation based on recent trends and current 
policy, including the Department's tank car rulemaking. The 
report should indicate to Congress the safest mode of 
transportation for the shipment of oil as well as necessary 
measures to improve the safety of each form of transportation.
    Crude Oil Volatility.--The rapid growth of light sweet 
crude oil from the Bakken shale in North Dakota being 
transported by rail has led to safety concerns about the 
movement of untreated products across the country. A recent 
literature survey from the Department of Energy's Sandia 
National Laboratories, conducted with cooperation from DOT, 
confirmed the complexity of determining the combustibility of 
the crude oil and the need for additional research to better 
predict the severity of any potential rail incident. The 
Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation to coordinate 
with the Secretary of Energy and any States where crude 
transported by rail originates to complete the second phase of 
the Department of Energy's study on oil volatility.
    Comprehensive Oil Spill Response Plans.--An oil spill 
response plan is intended to help the carrier identify and 
deploy a response organization to contain and remediate an oil 
release. The plans require carriers to identify a qualified 
individual with full authority to implement removal actions; 
ensure by contract or other means the availability of private 
personnel and equipment to remove a worst case discharge; and 
describe training, equipment testing, drills and exercises. 
PHMSA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on 
expanding the applicability of comprehensive oil spill response 
plans to rail carriers in July 2014. The Committee notes with 
disappointment that to date, despite additional resources 
provided by the Committee and direction in Senate Report 113-
182, PHMSA has not initiated a rulemaking. The Committee 
directs PHMSA to initiate a rulemaking to expand the 
applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans to rail 
carriers within 90 days of enactment of this act and to issue a 
final rule no later than 1 year after enactment of this act.
    User Fee Proposal.--In recent budget proposals, PHMSA has 
proposed the creation of a user fee to reduce the burden on the 
Federal taxpayer for financing special permit and approvals 
activities. The Committee believes that any such fee should be 
established through the authorization process.

                            PIPELINE SAFETY

                         (PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

                    (OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $146,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     175,104,000
House allowance.........................................     145,870,000
Committee recommendation................................     146,623,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Pipeline Safety Office has the important responsibility 
of ensuring the safety and integrity of the pipelines that run 
through every community in our Nation. Efforts by Congress and 
the OPS to invest in promising safety technologies, increase 
civil penalties, and educate communities about the potential 
risks of pipelines have resulted in a reduction in serious 
pipeline incidents. It is essential that the agency continue to 
make strides in protecting communities from pipeline failures 
and incidents. To that end, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $146,623,000 for the Office of Pipeline 
Safety. The amount is $623,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level and $28,481,000 less than the budget request. Of 
the funding provided, $19,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
Spill Liability Trust Fund and $127,123,000 shall be derived 
from the Pipeline Safety Fund.
    The Committee's recommended level of funding, in addition 
to unused funding in the current fiscal year, fully funds the 
additional staff previously provided for the Pipeline Safety 
Reform initiative. The Committee's recommendation provides no 
additional funding for National Pipeline Information Exchange. 
The Committee provided a substantial increase for State 
Pipeline Safety Grants [SPSG] in fiscal year 2015 and is 
concerned about the ability of States to provide the 20 percent 
match required to access these funds. The Committee directs 
PHMSA to include in future budget justifications an analysis of 
the ability of States to obligate the funding for SPSG within 
the 3-year period of availability of these funds. Of the funds 
recommended for research and development up to $2,000,000 shall 
be used for the Pipeline Safety Research Competitive Academic 
Agreement Program [CAAP] to focus on near-term solutions, such 
as advanced sensor technologies and coating technologies, to 
improve the safety and reliability of the Nation's pipeline 
transportation system.
    Pipeline Safety User Fee Allocation.--The pipeline safety 
program is largely funded through user fees on natural gas 
transmission pipelines, jurisdictional hazardous liquid 
pipelines, and liquefied natural gas terminal operators. Recent 
authorizations have increased the responsibilities for PHMSA 
and the States with respect to the safety of our Nation's 
pipelines. Given this change in scope of the pipeline safety 
program, the Committee directs PHMSA to review the user fee 
collection process to determine if it should be modified to 
more equitably allocate the cost of the pipeline safety program 
across the industry segments covered by Federal and State 
oversight. PHMSA shall submit a report to both the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment 
of this act, that summarizes the agency's statutory authority 
to revise the fee structure, its assessment of the current fee 
structure, and any recommendations for changes to the fee 
structure that should be considered by Congress it considers 
reauthorization of PHMSA.
    Pipeline Safety at River Crossings.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance of protecting the integrity of 
pipelines at river crossings. River crossings present unique 
challenges to preserving pipeline infrastructure buried under a 
river bed. Fast-moving water and erosion can change the 
characteristics of rivers rapidly, exposing these pipelines and 
making them more susceptible to rupture. The Committee 
recognizes that PHMSA has recently studied this issue. Given 
the importance of safeguarding our waterways, the Committee 
directs the Department to report on how real-time monitoring 
during flood events and pertinent data from other agencies such 
as the United States Geological Survey is being used to address 
challenges associated with the dynamic and unique nature of 
rivers and flood plains.

                     EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

                     (EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $28,318,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      28,318,000
House allowance.........................................      28,318,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,318,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $28,318,000 and an equal 
obligation limitation for the emergency preparedness grant 
program. The recommendation continues to provide PHMSA the 
authority to use prior year carryover and recaptures for the 
development of a Web-based hazardous materials response 
training curriculum for emergency responders, including 
response activities for crude oil, ethanol and other flammable 
liquids by rail. The training curriculum shall be developed in 
coordination with the FRA and be consistent with National Fire 
Protection Association standards. The Committee encourages 
PHMSA to complete its work and make the Web-based curriculum 
available to local emergency responders as expeditiously as 
possible. Prior years' carry over may also be used to train 
public sector emergency response personnel in communities on or 
near rail lines that transport a significant volume of high-
risk energy commodities or toxic inhalation hazards. The 
Committee continues a provision increasing the administrative 
costs available from 2 percent to 4 percent and directs the 
agency to address the OIG's recommendations.

  ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY 
                             ADMINISTRATION

    Section 180 raises concerns about PHMSA's regulation of the 
siting of small-scale liquefaction facilities that generate and 
package liquefied natural gas [LNG] for use as a fuel or 
delivery to consumers by non-pipeline modes of transportation. 
These facilities are regulated by title 49 Code of Federal 
Regulations part 193, which was developed to address safety 
standards for LNG facilities used in the transportation of gas 
by pipeline and subject to pipeline safety laws. The Committee 
believes these regulations are outdated, excessively 
challenging, and do not take into account the reduction in 
scale of these smaller facilities that provide fuel to 
vehicles, vessels, or other end users. To address these 
concerns, PHMSA is directed to evaluate and report an 
alternative risk-based compliance regime for siting small-scale 
liquefaction facilities and consider the value of quantitative 
risk assessment methods, the benefits of incorporating modern 
industry standards and best practices, and the need to 
encourage the use of best available technology to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment 
of this act. Until that regime is established, PHMSA is 
encouraged as an interim measure to give expedited 
consideration to any request for a special permit that seeks to 
use an alternative risk-based approach for siting a small-scale 
liquefaction facility.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $86,223,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      87,472,000
House allowance.........................................      86,223,000
Committee recommendation................................      87,472,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation provides $87,472,000 for 
activities of the Office of the Inspector General, which is 
equal to the President's budget request and $1,249,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
    Audit Reports.--The Committee requests that the Inspector 
General continue to forward copies of all audit reports to the 
Committee immediately after they are issued, and to continue to 
make the Committee aware immediately of any review that 
recommends cancellation or modifications to any major 
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant 
budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from 
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or 
investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate 
Committees on Appropriations.
    Unfair Business Practices.--The bill maintains language 
which authorizes the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud 
and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of 
competition by air carriers and ticket agents.

                      Surface Transportation Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Crediting
                                         Appropriation      offsetting
                                                           collections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2015..................      $31,375,000       $1,250,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................       32,499,000        1,250,000
House allowance.......................       31,375,000        1,250,000
Committee recommendation..............       32,375,000        1,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$32,375,000. This funding level is $124,000 below the budget 
request and $1,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level. Included in the recommendation is $1,250,000 in fees, 
which will offset the appropriated funding. The Committee 
recommendation includes additional funding to make long overdue 
improvements to the agency's information technology system.

            General Provisions--Department of Transportation

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

                                TITLE II

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was 
established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public 
Law 89-174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the 
principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned 
with the Nation's housing needs, fair housing opportunities, 
and improving and developing the Nation's communities.
    In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and 
interests of the Nation's communities and of the people who 
live and work in them, HUD administers mortgage and loan 
insurance programs that help families become homeowners and 
facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and 
homeownership subsidy programs for low-income families who 
otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat 
discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair 
housing opportunities; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate 
supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid neighborhood 
rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of 
our urban centers from blight and decay.
    HUD administers programs that protect homebuyers, and 
fosters programs and research that stimulate and guide the 
housing industry to provide not only housing, but better 
communities and living environments.
    As HUD works to fulfill its mission, the Committee urges 
the Secretary to enhance efforts to provide decent, affordable 
housing and to promote economic development for rural 
Americans. When designing programs and making funding 
decisions, the Secretary shall take into consideration the 
unique conditions, challenges, and scale of rural areas.
    The Committee notes that poverty is far too prevalent in 
the United States. HUD should continue to work with Congress 
and other partners to implement policies that reduce the 
existence of poverty and the suffering associated with it. The 
Committee also encourages HUD to increase interagency 
collaboration to ensure Federal resources are strategically 
deployed in order to achieve the most effective outcomes, while 
also reducing overlap and duplication.
    Relationship Between HUD and the Committee on 
Appropriations.--The primary relationship between the Committee 
and HUD exists via the Departmental budget office. This 
relationship is an absolute necessity in structuring the annual 
appropriations act. It facilitates an effective sharing of a 
wide range of budgetary and cost information. The Committee 
retains the right to call upon all offices and agencies within 
the Department, but the primary connection between the two 
entities exists through the budget office. The Committee 
cautions HUD that section 405 of the 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 2016, the Committee 
continues to fund appropriations attorneys in the OCFO and 
directs HUD to refer all appropriations law issues to such 
attorneys within the OCFO. The Committee directs the Department 
to inform the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
within 5 days of enactment of this act that this directive has 
been implemented.
    Reprogramming and Congressional Notification.--The 
Committee reiterates that the Department must secure the 
approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
for the reprogramming of funds between programs, projects, and 
activities within each account. Unless otherwise identified in 
the bill or report, the most detailed allocation of funds 
presented in the budget justifications is approved, with any 
deviation from such approved allocation subject to the normal 
reprogramming requirements. Except as specifically provided 
otherwise, it is the intent of the Committee that all carryover 
funds in the various accounts, including recaptures and de-
obligations, are subject to the normal reprogramming 
requirements outlined under section 405. No change may be made 
to any program, project, or activity if it is construed to be 
new policy or a change in policy, without prior approval of the 
Committees on Appropriations. The Committee also directs HUD to 
include a separate delineation of any reprogramming of funds 
requiring approval in the operating plan required by section 
405 of this act. Finally, the Committee shall be notified 
regarding reorganizations of offices, programs or activities 
prior to the implementation of such reorganizations, as well as 
be notified, on a monthly basis, of all ongoing litigation, 
including any negotiations or discussions, planned or ongoing, 
regarding a consent decree between the Department and any other 
entity, including the estimated costs of such decrees.
    Grant Awards and Congressional Notification.--HUD is 
reminded that appropriated funds are critical investments that 
support communities across the Nation. HUD's grant programs 
give State and local governments, public housing authorities, 
non-profit organizations, tribal entities, and other key 
housing development and service providers the resources to 
build and preserve quality affordable housing, spur local 
economies, and make communities more stable. The Committee is 
concerned that the Department continues to use archaic systems 
and processes for grant notifications, causing delays, 
inefficiencies, and administrative burdens on staff. Therefore, 
the Committee urges HUD to consult with the Department of 
Transportation and other Federal agencies on their 
Congressional notification process. HUD shall report to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of 
enactment of this act on how the Department intends to move 
toward a central database and distribution for all 
Congressional notifications.
    Congressionally Mandated Reports.--The Department is 
reminded that directives and reports mandated in the House and 
Senate Appropriations acts and accompanying reports are not 
optional unless revised or eliminated by the Statement of 
Managers accompanying the act. The Committee believes that such 
reports provide a better understanding of various issues and 
the Committee uses such reports to help inform funding 
decisions. Therefore, the Department is advised that the 
submission of directed reports is mandatory and not at the 
discretion of the Department. The Committee directs the 
Department to submit all overdue reports and to advise the 
Committee if it will be unable to meet a reporting requirement 
well in advance of the deadline.

                     Management and Administration

                           EXECUTIVE OFFICES

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $14,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      14,646,000
House allowance.........................................      14,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,500,000 
for this account, which is equal to the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level and $146,000 less than the budget request. The 
funding level provided includes no more than $51,000 for the 
combined travel costs of the offices of Congressional and 
Intergovernmental Relations and Public Affairs. The Secretary 
is directed to submit a spending plan to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations that outlines how budgetary 
resources will be distributed among the seven offices funded 
under this heading.
    Telework and Alternative Work Schedules.--As the Department 
increases its use of telework and alternative work schedules, 
it is important to recognize that these flexibilities present 
unique challenges as employees work to maintain office 
productivity and ensure that members of the Department, the 
public, and other stakeholders are able to consistently reach 
HUD staff. The Committee recognizes that these work place 
flexibilities can be beneficial to both the employee and the 
Department. However, HUD is relying on individual managers and 
employees or program offices across headquarters, field and 
regional offices to develop strategies to effectively manage 
staff. While this may work in individual circumstances, it 
creates a patchwork of inconsistent and unreliable policies 
that impact employee productivity and customer service. The 
Committee is concerned that such policies encourage the misuse 
of telecommunications and intercommunications within the 
Department, impeding employee's ability to provide necessary 
customer service. The Committee believes the best approach is 
clear and consistent telework and alternative work schedule 
policies and guidance from Departmental leadership. In 
developing such guidance, the Committee strongly encourages the 
Department to consult the Office of Personnel Management on 
effective telework and alternative work schedule arrangements 
that establish consistent and effective communication 
requirements among teleworkers, managers, coworkers, the 
general public, and other stakeholders. The Committee directs 
HUD to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations within 120 days of enactment of this act on how 
the newly established guidance will enable Department managers 
to effectively manage their telework and alternative work staff 
so that no critical duties go unmet. This report should also 
include an identification of any barriers, including statutory 
or regulatory barriers, to improved performance and customer 
service under telework and alternative work schedules.
    Cross-Cutting Regulations.--The Committee is concerned that 
recent regulatory actions by the Department that have a cross-
cutting impact on grantees, including recent efforts related to 
section 3, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, and 
sustainability, have been done without a full recognition or 
assessment of the burden these efforts may place on grantees. 
The Committee is concerned that this results in one office 
within the Department creating new requirements that impact 
another office, or offices, of the Department without the full 
and equal participation of the affected programs and 
stakeholders. To avoid these unintended consequences, the 
Committee directs the Secretary to establish a working group to 
review the Department's current processes for designing, 
proposing, and implementing regulations that have impacts 
across multiple program areas and offices. The working group 
shall be led by a representative of the Office of the Secretary 
or Deputy Secretary. The Department is directed to report to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 
days of enactment of this act on the working group membership, 
the Department's current processes for designing, proposing 
(including a review of public comments), and implementing 
crosscutting regulations; ways the current process can be 
improved, mitigation strategies to be utilized to minimize 
grantee burden, and a timeline for implementing these 
improvements.
    Circumvention of the Nomination Process.--The Committee is 
deeply troubled by the Administration's willful circumvention 
of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution which in Article 
II, section 2, clause 2 states, ``and he shall nominate, and by 
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint 
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the 
supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, 
whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and 
which shall be established by Law.'' Specifically, the 
Committee notes the appointments earlier this year of the 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretaries for the Offices of 
Community Planning and Development, Housing, and Public and 
Indian Housing.
    While this position has existed at other Federal agencies, 
it is new to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
and comes at a time when the Assistant Secretary position in 
these offices has been vacant for an extended period of time. 
The position of Assistant Secretary of Housing/Federal Housing 
Administration Commissioner has been vacant since October 24, 
2014; the position of Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 
Housing has been vacant since June 30, 2014; the position of 
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development has 
been vacant the longest, since May 18, 2012. The Committee is 
incredulous that the Administration has elected to maintain the 
vacancy of these three mission critical positions. The 
Committee also takes umbrage with the Administration's decision 
to redirect a nominee, whose nomination was presented at the 
end of the 113th Congress, to a Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary position in lieu of re-nominating the individual at 
the beginning of the 114th Congress.
    The Committee strongly encourages HUD and the 
Administration to rethink the appointment of Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretaries in the offices of Public and Indian 
Housing, Community Planning and Development, and Housing in the 
absence of incumbent Assistant Secretaries or putting forth 
nominations for those positions. While the Committee does not 
expressly forbid this practice, the Committee has reduced 
amounts included in the Committee's recommendation by amounts 
equal to the salary and benefits of a Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for offices where the position of Assistant 
Secretary is not filled or for which a nomination for that 
position is not currently pending before the Senate Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs or has been reported by 
that Committee to the Senate.

                     Administrative Support Offices

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $518,100,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     577,861,000
House allowance.........................................     547,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     568,244,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $568,244,000 
for this account, which is $50,144,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2015 enacted level and $9,617,000 less than the budget 
request.
    The President's fiscal year 2016 budget proposes one amount 
of funding for all offices under the heading of administrative 
support offices, eliminating budget line items for each office. 
The Committee created the existing funding structure to 
increase the transparency of HUD's personnel funding. Over the 
years, the Committee has modified the structure to make it more 
effective and responsive to the Department's operations. The 
Committee rejects the Department's proposal to fund one amount 
for ASO accounts. The Committee continues to work with HUD to 
respond to reprogramming requests necessary to address funding 
challenges that have arisen during the fiscal year and expects 
HUD to manage its resources as provided. The Committee notes 
that reprogramming requests submitted at the end of the fiscal 
year are the result of HUD's resource management, not of the 
account structure. The Committee directs HUD's Office of the 
Chief Financial Officer and the Office of the Human Capital 
Officer to submit quarterly reports to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations on hiring and separations by 
program office. This report shall include position titles, 
location, associated FTE, and include the Office of the 
Inspector General and Government National Mortgage Association.
    Funds are made available as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer...............     $61,475,000
Office of Administration................................     208,604,000
Office of the Chief Financial Officer...................      44,657,000
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer.................      17,036,000
Office of Field Policy and Management...................      50,000,000
Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity.....       3,270,000
Office of the General Counsel...........................      96,000,000
Office of Strategic Planning and Management.............       4,400,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer.................      82,802,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Office of the Chief Information Officer.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $82,802,000 for this office, which is 
$36,802,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. This 
increase is associated with the transfer of personnel and non-
personnel resources related to New Core.
    Office of the Chief Financial Officer.--The Committee 
remains focused on the staffing levels in the Office of Budget, 
and directs HUD to move expeditiously to address the office's 
staffing needs. To that end, the Committee directs the 
Department to prioritize the hiring of at least four FTP in the 
Office of Budget (three within the Program Budget Development 
Division, one FTP per branch, and one FTP within the 
Appropriations Liaison Division) before hiring in other OCFO 
functional areas, except in order to address mission critical 
positions that become vacant during fiscal year 2016.
    The Committee directs HUD to submit a 2016 hiring plan for 
OCFO to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
within 30 days of enactment of this Act.
    The Committee commends the work of the Appropriations Law 
Division in the OCFO and encourages the Department to maximize 
its use of this valuable resource. The Committee reminds the 
Department of its intent that all appropriations law issues be 
referred to and addressed by such division.
    HUD shall not alter the organizational structure of OCFO as 
in effect on January 1, 2015, without prior written approval of 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    New Core and Shared Services.--Following the implementation 
challenges with HUD's previously proposed financial 
modernization effort, Integrated Financial Management 
Improvement Project [HIFMIP], HUD has undertaken a new 
initiative, New Core. This multi-year modernization initiative 
established a shared service agreement between HUD and the 
Bureau of Fiscal Service's Administrative Resource Center to 
support HUD's financial management processes and associated 
systems. Due to the critical need of modernizing HUD's 
financial management processes and developing an integrated 
system, the Committee is closely monitoring the management of 
this initiative. The Committee is deeply troubled by 
preliminary assessments of New Core, and is concerned that the 
Department's investments are occurring with no strategic 
connection to the larger IT modernization efforts throughout 
the Department. The Committee is also concerned that the 
savings expected from decommissioning legacy systems in 2015 
will not be realized and that there are no real savings to the 
system operations and maintenance costs associated with this 
transition. The Committee is further dismayed that the efforts 
to migrate to a shared service provider in 2015 will not 
directly address any of the material weaknesses identified in 
the 2014 Office of the Inspector General's Annual Auditor's 
Report.
    Providing a robust and accurate financial management system 
is the fundamental goal of New Core, yet it appears the current 
approach will result in HUD and the taxpayer paying more for a 
financial system that provides less functionality than the 
current HUDCAPS system and doing so with a greater risk of 
Anti-Deficiency Act violations.
    The Committee reminds the Department that while modernized 
systems to support stronger financial management and accounting 
structure are critical to the financial health of HUD, it is 
equally important to consider the human capital aspects of such 
transition. The Committee is concerned that HUD's reliance on 
the expertise of external human capital will result in limited 
success in IT modernization and a failure to develop and 
institutionalize internal change management capacity.
    While the Committee does not believe it is in the best 
interest to eliminate funding for New Core, it is clear that 
the migration efforts cannot continue as currently structured. 
The Committee is shifting all personnel and non-personnel 
funding for New Core out of the Office of the Chief Financial 
Officer and into the Office of the Chief Information Officer. 
The Committee expects that New Core will be implemented at the 
direction of the Chief Information Officer in collaboration 
with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. The Committee 
directs HUD to provide the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations with updates at least quarterly on New Core. To 
this end, the update should include, information regarding 
estimated and actual lifecycle costs, functionalities deployed 
and the associated number of requirements remaining to be 
implemented, a list of risks and issues with associated 
mitigation strategies and anticipated closure dates, the status 
of organization change management activities, a list of the 
activities planned and completed business process reengineering 
efforts, and the total number of HUD employees impacted by 
role, location, and organization. The Committee also urges HUD 
to utilize the expertise of GAO and to continue to consult with 
the Office of the Inspector General [OIG] as New Core moves 
forward.

                 Program Offices Salaries and Expenses


                       PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $203,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     210,002,000
House allowance.........................................     203,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     207,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $207,000,000 
for this account, which is $3,002,000 less than the budget 
request and $4,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level. The Committee recommendation supports existing 
personnel, and will allow the agency to make critical hires. 
The Committee directs HUD to continue to focus these resources 
on strengthening its oversight functions, including oversight 
of troubled and near troubled agencies. Of the amounts 
provided, not less than $100,000 is for travel related to the 
provision of training, technical assistance, oversight and 
management of Indian housing.
    The Committee also urges HUD to look for ways to better 
integrate offices within PIH. The Committee notes that various 
offices within PIH share responsibility of overseeing public 
housing agencies and the programs that they run. It is 
imperative that the different offices within PIH improve 
coordination that will result in a reduction of duplicative or 
conflicting information requests of PHAs, clearer, concise and 
streamlined guidance to PHAs, administrative efficiencies, and 
policies that align across programs. Therefore, the Committee 
directs the Department to evaluate the current PIH 
organizational structure and determine if the current structure 
is the most effective approach for program delivery, especially 
for the public housing programs. HUD shall report on its 
findings and recommendations to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations within 180 days of enactment of this act.
    The Committee directs HUD to prioritize the hiring of staff 
to fill critical positions in the following areas: field office 
staff for the management and oversight of Moving-to-Work PHAs; 
financial analysts for the Housing Choice Voucher program; 
additional staff for the Office of Policy, Programs and 
Legislative Initiatives to create efficiencies in program 
operations; and field office staff for the management and 
oversight of grants to Indian tribes.
    The Committee directs HUD to submit a 2016 hiring plan for 
PIH to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 
30 days of enactment of this act.
    Housing Quality Standards.--HUD's housing quality standards 
should effectively protect the health and safety of public 
housing and Housing Choice Voucher [HCV] residents. While the 
Department has made changes to public housing inspection 
standards to better capture the physical needs of an aging 
housing stock, the Committee is concerned that standards for 
the HCV program remain outdated and do not reflect recent 
research on health and safety threats in the home. The 
Committee directs the Department to evaluate the current HCV 
housing quality standards and report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment of 
this act on a plan for updating the standards and a schedule to 
implement a single inspection protocol for public housing and 
voucher units in fiscal year 2016.

                   COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $102,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     112,115,000
House allowance.........................................     102,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     107,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $107,000,000 
for the staffing within this office, which is $5,115,000 less 
than the budget request and $5,000,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2015 enacted level. The recommended level of funding will 
support additional FTE focused on grant oversight and 
monitoring to help address backlog of grants and audit 
findings.
    The Committee directs HUD to prioritize the hiring of staff 
to support the closeout of open audits and backlog of open 
grants, particularly as it relates to disaster recovery grants, 
before hiring in other areas, unless such staff are identified 
as backfilling mission-critical positions.
    The Committee directs HUD to submit a 2016 hiring plan for 
CPD to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 
30 days of enactment of this act.

                                HOUSING

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $379,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     397,174,000
House allowance.........................................     372,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     382,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $382,000,000 
for staffing in the Office of Housing, which is $15,174,000 
less than the budget request and $3,000,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Committee's recommendation 
does not include a specific funding level for the Office of 
Risk and Regulatory Affairs because the Committee believes that 
this office is now well established and staffed within the 
overall funding provided to the Office of Housing.
    Multifamily Transformation.--At the end of 2013, HUD and 
the Committee came to an agreement to reorganize the Office of 
Multifamily Housing to streamline operations, improve program 
delivery, and save taxpayer funding. The Committee would like 
to remind HUD that they must adhere to the Appropriations 
Committee's fiscal year 2015 agreement that HUD Asset 
Management functions and associated staff remain in existing 
field offices. The Committee further instructs that HUD, to the 
extent possible, prioritizes retaining talent at the local 
level to ensure high quality service. In doing so, the 
Committee strongly encourages the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development to provide Office of Multifamily Housing 
employees impacted by the Multifamily Housing Transformation 
with flexible work schedule options and telework options. This 
flexibility is critical for employees to maintain consistent 
representation in non-urban housing markets throughout 
implementation of the Multifamily Housing Transformation and 
after the Multifamily Housing Transformation has been 
completed. The Department, in conjunction with the Office of 
Inspector General, is directed to report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations 90 days after enactment of 
this act on their use and oversight of, and compliance with, 
existing Federal regulations on allowable relocation expenses. 
This report should identify costs associated with mandatory and 
discretionary relocation requirements.

                    POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $22,700,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      23,907,000
House allowance.........................................      22,700,000
Committee recommendation................................      23,100,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,100,000 
for this account, which is $807,000 less than the budget 
request and $400,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level.
    PD&R; collects and distributes data on HUD programs, the 
people HUD serves, and housing needs across the country, in 
addition to providing technical assistance in these areas. The 
information it makes available and the analysis it provides to 
the Department are essential to moving HUD to outcomes based 
performance measures. The Committee also relies on the data and 
research provided by PD&R; to inform its work. The recommended 
amount will ensure that PD&R; can continue to play this 
important role.

                   FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $68,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      81,132,000
House allowance.........................................      73,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      69,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $69,500,000, 
which is $11,632,000 less than the budget request and 
$1,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.

            OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL AND HEALTHY HOMES

Appropriations, 2015....................................      $6,700,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................       7,812,000
House allowance.........................................       6,700,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,800,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,800,000 for 
this account, which is $1,012,000 less than the budget request 
and $100,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.

                       Public and Indian Housing


                     TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2015.................................... $19,304,160,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................  21,123,496,000
House allowance.........................................  19,918,643,000
Committee recommendation................................  19,934,643,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$19,934,643,000 for fiscal year 2016, including $4,000,000,000 
as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1, 
2016. This amount is $1,188,853,000 less than the budget 
request and $630,483,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level.
    The Committee recommends $17,982,000,000 for the renewal 
costs of section 8 vouchers, which is $351,816,000 less than 
the budget request and $496,000,000 more than the fiscal year 
2015 enacted level.
    The section 8 rental assistance program is a critical tool 
that enables more than 2 million low-income individuals and 
families to access safe, stable and affordable housing in the 
private market. In recognition of the section 8 program's 
central role in ensuring housing for vulnerable Americans, the 
Committee recommendation includes sufficient resources to 
ensure that no current voucher holders are put at risk of 
losing their housing. The recommended funding level reflects 
updated actual leasing and cost data that reduces voucher costs 
from the original budget request. It also supports the first 
time renewal of incremental vouchers that were funded in prior 
years, including HUD-VASH vouchers. The Committee will continue 
to monitor leasing data to make sure residents are protected.
    Addressing Regulatory Burdens.--The Committee expects HUD 
to update regulations that don't require congressional action. 
In recent years, public housing authorities [PHAs] have faced 
serious funding constraints, and the Committee voiced concerns 
at HUD's budget hearing on the burdensome requirements they are 
expected to meet. It is therefore imperative that HUD work to 
ensure scarce administrative dollars are directed toward 
requirements that will ensure housing safety standards, protect 
residents, and save taxpayer dollars. It is clear that some 
existing regulations are creating burdens for PHAs with little 
benefit to the oversight of the program. At the same time, HUD 
should require different information that would provide better 
insight into its programs and improve its oversight. While 
notices can provide flexibility for addressing existing 
regulatory requirements, they do not actually reduce the amount 
of regulations. If regulations are outdated and no longer 
reflect effective program management and oversight, the 
Department should focus on repealing these requirements, not 
just creating temporary ad hoc workarounds. In fiscal year 
2014, the Committee required HUD to report on regulations that 
need to be updated or new regulations that should be 
promulgated. The report that HUD submitted to the Committees in 
February reflects an initial effort from which to move forward. 
The Committee directs the Department to submit a report to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 180 days after 
enactment of this act that highlights the regulatory reviews 
initiated and work accomplished since 2014's reporting 
requirement and includes a list of regulation updates that are 
still outstanding, planned efforts to review additional 
regulatory and statutory requirements, and a timeline for 
completing this effort.
    Cash Management.--The Committee reminds the Department that 
the Office of Inspector General's audit of HUD's fiscal year 
2013 financial statements identified a material weakness in 
PIH's cash management process. Specifically, it found that the 
process departs from Generally Accepted Accounting Principles 
[GAAP] and Treasury requirements. The Committee reiterates its 
concerns with PIH's cash management practices, particularly 
since it limits understanding of the true funding needs in the 
voucher program.
    The Committee stresses the importance of resolving this 
audit finding swiftly and implementing a cash management 
process that complies with GAAP and Treasury requirements, and 
also provides greater transparency into voucher renewal needs. 
The Committee reminds the Department that it has failed to 
submit a plan to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations identifying how the Department will implement 
new cash management policies and require housing authorities to 
draw down funds; a practice most housing authorities already do 
through the public housing programs.
    Finance and Governance.--The Committee recognizes HUD's 
efforts to identify and address critical skills that PHA boards 
should have to effectively oversee PHA operations. The 
Department is directed to provide semi-annual updates on their 
efforts to support the development of PHA boards.
    Set-Asides for Special Circumstances.--The Committee has 
provided a set-aside of $75,000,000 to allow the Secretary to 
adjust allocations to PHAs under certain circumstances. 
Qualifying factors include: (1) a significant increase, as 
determined by the Secretary, in renewal costs of tenant-based 
rental assistance resulting from unforeseen circumstances and 
voucher utilization or the impact from portability under 
section 8(r) of the act; (2) vouchers that were not in use 
during the previous 12-month period in order to be available to 
meet a commitment pursuant to section 8(o)(13) of the act; (3) 
adjustments or costs associated with HUD-VASH vouchers; and (4) 
possible termination of families as a result of insufficient 
funding. A PHA should not receive an adjustment to its 
allocation from the funding provided under this section if the 
Secretary determines that such PHA, through negligence or 
intentional actions, would exceed its authorized level of 
vouchers.
    HUD-VASH.--The Committee recognizes the progress HUD-VASH 
partners have made in addressing homelessness among veterans, 
but rejects the Administration's assumption that homelessness 
among veterans will end by the end of calendar year 2015. 
Therefore, the Committee has included $75,000,000 for new VASH 
vouchers. The Committee also recognizes the importance of the 
on-going pilot on expanding the HUD-VASH program to American 
Indian veterans living in tribal areas. Given the importance of 
reducing homelessness for veterans in Indian country, the 
Committee directs the Department to update the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations within 180 days on the progress of 
this pilot.
    Administrative Fees.--The Committee recommends 
$1,620,000,000 for administrative fees, which is $400,037,000 
less than the budget request and $90,000,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
    Tenant Protection Vouchers.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $130,000,000 for tenant protection vouchers. These 
vouchers are provided to public housing residents whose 
buildings have health or safety issues, or whose projects are 
being demolished. However, the largest share of these vouchers 
is provided to tenants living in properties with expiring HUD 
assistance that may face rent increases if their owners opt out 
of HUD programs. In these instances, the vouchers ensure 
continued affordability of tenants' housing.
    Section 811 Mainstream Vouchers.--The Committee recommends 
$107,643,000 to continue the rental assistance and 
administrative costs of this program.
    Family Unification Program.--Young adults associated with 
child welfare systems are more likely to experience 
homelessness as adults or as they transition to adulthood. The 
Committee recognizes that stable, affordable housing with 
appropriate services can help prevent children from being 
unnecessarily removed from their families and help youth 
exiting foster care transition to adulthood. The Committee is 
concerned that FUP vouchers are underutilized as a housing 
strategy to assist at-risk youth and that PHAs and local public 
child welfare agencies have had limited success in developing 
effective partnerships. According to a May 2014 report from 
HUD's Office of Policy Development & Research, youth only 
comprise about 14 percent of the total program participants. 
Therefore, the Committee includes $20,000,000 for new Family 
Unification [FUP] vouchers. The Committee directs HUD to 
prioritize the award of these new vouchers to PHAs that will 
target them to youth and PHAs that have partnered with their 
local public child welfare agency to ensure youth referrals for 
these vouchers. In order to further improve the program and 
reduce the incidence of youth homelessness, the Committee also 
includes a provision to permit FUP vouchers for youth to be 
used for up to 36 months instead of the current 18 month limit.
    The Committee is also concerned about how and when families 
and youth are being referred to receive FUP assistance. The 
Committee directs HUD to work with the Department of Health and 
Human Services Administration on Children and Families [ACF] to 
develop guidance and training materials necessary to improve 
connections between local agencies, increase collaboration, 
improve programs, goals, and supportive housing models that 
align at the local level. Further, HUD is directed to identify 
specific statutory or regulatory barriers either within the FUP 
program or child welfare service programs that limit 
individuals' access to services and case management that can 
help improve outcomes for at-risk youth. The Committee directs 
HUD to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations 180 days after enactment of this act on the 
status and results of these efforts.
    Family Self-Sufficiency.--In fiscal year 2015, the 
Committee provided flexibility to HUD to improve connections 
between vouchers serving youth exiting foster care and the 
Family Self Sufficiency program. HUD shall work with ACF to 
issue a Notice within 30 days of enactment of this act to 
implement this new authority.
    Moving-to-Work.--The purpose of the Moving-to-Work [MTW] 
demonstration, established in the 1996 Appropriations Act, is 
to give public housing agencies [PHAs] and HUD the flexibility 
to design and test various approaches for providing and 
administering housing assistance that: reduce cost and achieve 
greater effectiveness in Federal expenditures; give incentives 
to families with children where the head of household is 
working, seeking work, or is preparing for work by 
participating in job training, educational programs, or 
programs that assist people to obtain employment and become 
economically self-sufficient; and increase housing choices for 
low-income families. The recent Abt Associates report, 
``Innovation in the Moving to Work Demonstration,'' highlights 
how the current participating agencies have used MTW 
flexibilities to implement local innovations from small 
administrative changes to the creation of new programs.
    The Committee recommendation expands the MTW program by 300 
high performing PHAs. Currently, 39 PHAs participate in the MTW 
program. This number is less than 1 percent of all PHAs, and 
less than 3 percent of PHAs that administer both public housing 
and voucher programs. This level is insufficient to truly 
evaluate the MTW demonstration. In addition to being a small 
percentage of the total number of PHAs, the current 
participating agencies are not a representative sample of PHAs 
overall. For example, the average size of a PHA (including MTW 
agencies) that administers vouchers and public housing is 
nearly 1,900 units; excluding MTW agencies the average is just 
over 1,600 units; and for MTW agencies the average is 11,800. 
It is clear that the current demonstration is not reflective of 
the geographic distribution or program size of most PHAs. This 
undermines the ability of the MTW demonstration to test 
innovations that are applicable to the broader universe of 
PHAs. Without a meaningful expansion of the demonstration, the 
Department will continue to focus attention on the other 99 
percent of PHAs and the existing regulatory framework; and 
better approaches to providing assisted-housing and encouraging 
self-sufficiency will continue to languish.
    Adding 300 PHAs to the MTW program cannot and should not be 
accomplished in 1 year. Steady expansion over several years is 
proposed not just for developing HUD capacity, but to also 
incentivize PHAs to improve their physical quality and 
financial management in order to qualify for MTW status.
    The Committee recommendation denies the Department's 
request to grant exceptions to project-basing housing choice 
vouchers. Rather, the Department shall assess the 20 percent 
cap on project basing of Housing Choice Vouchers as embodied in 
24 CFR part 983.6 and report to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations within 120 days of enactment of this act on 
the impact of a cap increase on developing new housing or 
rehabilitating existing stock.
    The Committee remains concerned about the Department's 
efforts to make substantial changes to the present authority 
and financial terms of existing Moving-to-Work agreements. 
These provisions give cities the flexibility and resources to 
tackle the most vexing challenges they have in housing the very 
low-income families and individuals who lack the means to fully 
pay for their own shelter. The Department's proposal to alter 
the current formula for public housing operating subsidies is 
estimated to cost cities millions and weaken their ability to 
serve their residents. The Committee recommendation includes an 
extension of the terms and agreements of existing MTW 
agreements to ensure these MTWs continue to exercise critical 
flexibilities that meet their local and unique housing and 
supportive service needs.
    To ensure that PHAs participating in the Moving-to-Work 
demonstration program are best serving the needs of those they 
serve, the Committee directs the Department to report to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 120 days 
of enactment of this act identifying ways in which it is 
identifying PHAs that hold excessive reserves in lieu of 
providing housing and how it is remedying this issue.

                        HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

                        (INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has not included a rescission from the 
Housing Certificate Fund in fiscal year 2016, consistent with 
the President's request. The Committee has included language 
that will allow unobligated balances from specific accounts to 
be used to renew or amend Project-Based Rental Assistance 
contracts.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2015....................................  $1,875,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................   1,970,000,000
House allowance.........................................   1,681,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,742,870,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,742,870,000 
for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is $227,130,000 less 
than the budget request and $132,130,000 less than the fiscal 
year 2015 enacted level.
    Of the amount made available under this account, 
$35,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public 
housing under the Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency 
[ROSS] program. The Committee also recommends up to $3,000,000 
to support the ongoing financial and physical assessment 
activities performed by the Real Estate Assessment Center 
[REAC] and $1,000,000 for the cost of administrative and 
judicial receiverships.
    Flexibility To Meet Pressing Needs.--In an effort to 
achieve an appropriate balance between flexibility and 
accountability, the Committee has included provisions designed 
to provide PHAs with mechanisms to better meet their capital 
and operating needs. The first provision provides PHAs with the 
authority to transfer up to 20 percent of their operating funds 
to their capital fund. This provides PHAs with not only the 
ability to reinvest operational savings in their properties, 
but also creates an incentive for them to do so. In addition, 
language is included for fiscal year 2016 that allows PHAs to 
transfer up to 25 percent of their capital funds to their 
operating fund.
    A second provision permits housing authorities to establish 
and maintain replacement reserves. Establishing and maintaining 
replacement or capital reserves is common practice in real 
estate, and in fact, they are required for projects in HUD 
multifamily programs. However, the existing obligation 
deadlines for public housing capital funds prevent the 
establishment of such reserves. This limits the ability of PHAs 
to save for planned capital projects necessary to maintain 
housing in good condition.
    The Committee expects the Department to move quickly to set 
up the rules and requirements around the capital reserves so 
that PHAs can utilize this new tool to address the significant 
backlog of capital needs and better plan for future capital 
requirements. This should include how HUD will ensure that 
funds are being saved for and spent on needed capital projects.
    Safety and Security in Public Housing.--The Committee 
directs at least $6,000,000 of the $23,000,000 recommended for 
emergency capital needs for safety and security measures 
necessary to address crime and drug-related activity in public 
housing. The Committee has included this specific set-aside 
because there are PHAs facing safety and security issues that 
rely on these funds to protect their tenants. The Committee 
notes that the demand for these funds continues to grow while 
the amount that HUD is awarding to PHAs is decreasing. The 
Committee believes that the level of funding recommended will 
support both repairs from disasters and safety and security 
improvements. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department 
to fund eligible safety and security projects with a portion of 
these funds as quickly as possible.
    Jobs-Plus.--The Committee has included $15,000,000 to 
continue the Jobs-Plus Initiative. Jobs-Plus is based on a 
demonstration the Department began in 1998 that combined 
employment-related services and activities, financial 
incentives to work, and community support. The Committee 
supports HUD's efforts to assist public housing residents in 
finding employment and achieving greater economic self-
sufficiency through this initiative.
    Literacy Programs.--The Committee notes the importance of 
education and financial literacy in helping families improve 
life skills and increase their economic opportunities. An 
evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] Program 
conducted by HUD found that families that exited the program 
before graduation had less education than program graduates. 
Increasing educational and financial literacy services for 
public housing residents offers an opportunity to increase the 
success of participants in FSS and other employment programs. 
The Committee encourages HUD to work with national community-
based literacy organizations to identify models that 
successfully incorporate adult literacy programs into HUD 
sponsored housing initiatives. Successful models should link 
these programs to job readiness and post-secondary transition 
initiatives, which will help adults with low literacy skills 
become more financially literate and gain the skills necessary 
to make informed decisions about the use and management of 
money. HUD should develop and share best practices with PHAs 
and other housing providers to expand services to adult 
learners.

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2015....................................  $4,440,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................   4,600,000,000
House allowance.........................................   4,440,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,500,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,500,000,000 
for the public housing operating fund, which is $100,000,000 
less than the budget request and $60,000,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
    The Committee has included provisions providing PHAs with 
increased flexibility to move funds between their capital and 
operating funds, as well as giving them the ability to 
establish capital reserves. The Committee notes that many PHAs 
have taken steps to achieve operational savings by improving 
energy efficiency or otherwise reducing expenses, and has 
included a provision that establishes a Utilities Conservation 
Pilot that incentivizes a reduction in public housing utility 
consumption, and costs, and provides PHAs with the ability to 
reinvest such savings in their properties and operations.
    The Committee recognizes that effective program oversight 
and management can be difficult when a program that operates on 
a calendar year basis is funded on a Federal fiscal year basis. 
To address this issue, the Committee has extended the period of 
availability of the funding for this program from 1-year to 2-
year funding.
    The Committee also recognizes that PHAs face administrative 
and regulatory burdens and it reiterates support for regulatory 
and administrative relief that result in cost savings, while 
still maintaining effective and meaningful oversight.

                    CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $80,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     250,000,000
House allowance.........................................      20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      65,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative provides competitive 
grants to transform impoverished neighborhoods into 
functioning, sustainable, mixed-income neighborhoods with co-
location of appropriate services, schools, public assets, 
transportation options, and access to jobs or job training. 
Choice Neighborhoods grants fund the preservation, 
rehabilitation, and transformation of public and HUD-assisted 
housing as well as their neighborhoods. Grantees include public 
housing authorities, tribes, local governments, and nonprofit 
organizations. For-profit developers may also apply in 
partnership with another eligible grantee. Grant funds can be 
used for resident and community services, community development 
and affordable housing activities in surrounding communities. 
Grantees undertake comprehensive local planning with input from 
residents and the community.
    The program also includes coordination with other Federal 
agencies, notably the Departments of Education, Labor, 
Transportation, Health and Human Services, and Justice, to 
leverage additional resources. Where possible, the program is 
coordinated with the Department of Education's Promise 
Neighborhoods Initiative.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $65,000,000 
for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. This amount is 
$15,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and 
$185,000,000 less than the budget request. Choice Neighborhoods 
seeks to build on the HOPE VI program by expanding the types of 
eligible grantees and allowing funding to be used on HUD-owned 
or assisted housing, as well as the surrounding community. 
However, the Committee notes that the work to replace 
distressed public housing is far from complete. Therefore, the 
Committee has included language that stipulates that not less 
than $40,000,000 of the funding provided shall be awarded to 
projects where public housing authorities are the lead 
applicant. The goal of Choice Neighborhoods is to replace 
distressed housing as a way to improve communities and the 
lives of residents. Therefore, HUD should not limit applicants 
to a narrowly defined set of neighborhoods since it may prevent 
the replacement of eligible and worthy public or assisted 
housing projects that are outside such designated neighborhoods 
from competing for funding.
    Inherent in the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative is the 
understanding that community transformation requires more than 
replacing housing. The creation of vibrant, sustainable 
communities also requires greater access to transportation, 
jobs and services that will increase opportunities for 
community residents. However, HUD funding cannot support all of 
these activities. The Committee has been encouraged by the 
ability of Choice Neighborhood grantees to leverage significant 
resources with their grant awards. Grantees have begun 
replacing affordable housing and making other community 
improvements, and when projects are complete, needed affordable 
housing units will be created or preserved.
    The Committee continues to emphasize the importance of 
integrating services for residents into Choice Neighborhood 
projects, which will help to ensure that the goal of improving 
the lives of residents can be met. In addition, the Committee 
urges HUD to identify successful partnership strategies that 
can not only be utilized by future Choice Neighborhood 
grantees, but can also serve as models for traditional public 
housing and HUD-assisted housing program providers that want to 
improve services for their residents.

                        FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $75,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      85,000,000
House allowance.........................................      75,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      75,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,000,000 
for the Family Self-Sufficiency program in fiscal year 2016, an 
amount equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and 
$10,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee strongly supports the FSS program, which 
helps provide public housing and section 8 residents with the 
tools to improve their lives and achieve self-sufficiency.
    As HUD works to streamline and expand the program, the 
Committee also expects HUD to identify best practices in the 
field that are successfully improving outcomes for residents. 
The Committee encourages HUD to consider best practices for how 
to increase participation, improve alignment between eligible 
uses of funding and milestones, and incorporate financial 
education into the program design.

                          INDIAN BLOCK GRANTS

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $716,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     740,000,000
House allowance.........................................     710,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     710,000,000

Note: The amounts for fiscal year 2015 enacted, the House allowance and 
fiscal year 2016 request include amounts funded or requested in the 
Community Development Fund for the Indian Community Development Block 
Grant program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account funds the Indian Housing Block Grant Program, 
as authorized under title I of the Native American Housing 
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 [NAHASDA]. This 
program provides a funding allocation on a formula basis to 
Indian tribes and their tribally designated housing entities to 
help address the housing needs within their communities. Under 
this block grant, Indian tribes use performance measures and 
benchmarks that are consistent with the national goals of the 
program, but can base these measures on the needs and 
priorities established in their own Indian housing plan.
    This account also funds the Indian Community Development 
Block Grant Program, as authorized under title I of the Housing 
and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. These funds 
are awarded on a competitive basis to Indian tribes for the 
funding of tribal community development needs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    To increase the transparency around funding for Native 
Americans, the Committee recommendation provides for both the 
Indian Housing Block Grant and Indian Community Development 
Block Grant programs under a single heading.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $650,000,000 
for the Indian Housing Block Grant Program [IHBG], of which 
$2,000,000 is set aside for a credit subsidy to support a loan 
level not to exceed $17,452,007 for the Title VI Loan Guarantee 
Program. The recommended level of funding is equal to the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2015 and $10,000,000 below the 
budget request.
    The recommendation also includes $60,000,000 for the Indian 
Community Development Block Grant Program [ICDBG]. The 
recommended level of funding is $6,000,000 below the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015 and $20,000,000 below the budget 
request. Recognizing the tremendous needs in Indian Country and 
the limited resources available to address these challenges, 
the Committee includes a new provision this year limiting the 
amount of funding a tribe may receive from the IHBG program to 
not more than 10 percent. The Committee directs HUD to collect 
data as part of tribes' Indian Housing Plan submissions on new 
program activity that is generated due to this provision.
    IHBG is a vital resource for tribal governments to address 
the dire housing conditions in Indian Country. Access to 
affordable housing remains in a critical state for many tribes 
across the country. Native Americans are twice as likely to 
live in poverty compared to the rest of the Nation. As a 
result, the housing challenges on tribal lands are daunting. 
According to the U.S. Census American Community Survey for 
2006-2010, 8.1 percent of homes on American Indian reservations 
and off-reservation trust land are overcrowded, compared to 3.1 
percent of households nationwide. The number of households on 
reservation lands with severe housing costs that spend more 
than 50 percent of their income on housing has risen 46 percent 
over the past decade.
    The Committee believes the housing goals for American 
Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians established in the 
Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, 
including section 802, remain a priority. The housing programs 
authorized in NAHASDA serve communities who are 
disproportionately low income, more likely to experience 
homelessness or overcrowded living conditions and unable to 
utilize traditional lending sources. The programs have aided 
thousands of individuals and families in the pursuit of safe, 
affordable housing and the committee encourages HUD to continue 
providing appropriate assistance and resources based on 
continued demonstrable need.
    Coordinated Environmental Reviews for Tribal Housing and 
Related Infrastructure.--The subcommittee staff have conducted 
site visits to several tribes to better understand the 
challenges to developing and maintaining affordable housing in 
Indian Country. The conditions found there were disturbing and 
the magnitude of the need overwhelming. Many tribally 
designated housing entities lack access to financing and credit 
to develop new housing due to the difficulty of financing when 
trust lands are involved. Most development projects take 3 
years or longer to complete due to a lack of financial 
resources, issues related to land and permitting approvals, and 
the lack of infrastructure in many of these sparse, remote 
locations.
    Additionally, in fiscal year 2015, the Committee directed 
HUD to collaborate with the Council on Environmental Quality 
and affected Federal agencies, including the Department of the 
Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Health and Human 
Services, the Federal Highway Administration, and the 
Environmental Protection Agency, to develop a coordinated 
environmental review process to simplify tribal housing 
development and its related infrastructure needs. The Committee 
expects HUD to continue to update the Committee on the status 
and progress of these on-going efforts.
    Technical Assistance.--Limited capacity hinders the ability 
of many tribes to effectively address their housing needs. The 
Committee recommendation includes funding for technical 
assistance needs in Indian country as part of the Department's 
overall technical assistance funding within the Office of 
Policy Development and Research. The Committee expects HUD to 
use the technical assistance funding provided to aid tribes 
with capacity challenges, especially tribes receiving small 
grant awards. The funding should be used for training, contract 
expertise, and other services necessary to improve data 
collection, increase leveraging, and address other needs 
identified by tribes. The Committee expects that any assistance 
provided will reflect the unique needs and culture of Native 
Americans. An important aspect of technical assistance is the 
dissemination of best practices. In March of 2014, GAO found 
that HUD had not shared promising housing practices more 
generally across tribes in a way that would make them easily 
accessible. Such information about successful approaches would 
help tribes use their IHBG funding in the most efficient and 
effective ways to provide affordable housing in their 
communities. The Committee directs HUD to report to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of 
enactment of this act on how the Department currently 
disseminates best practices to tribes, what practices it has 
implemented in response to GAO's findings, and what additional 
steps can be taken.
    Oversight Plan.--Within 30 days of enactment of this act, 
the Committee directs HUD to submit a fiscal year 2016 
oversight plan for the funds under this heading to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account     guaranteed
                                                              loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2015..................       $7,000,000     $744,047,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................        8,000,000    1,269,841,270
House allowance.......................        8,000,000    1,269,841,270
Committee recommendation..............        7,000,000    1,111,111,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,000,000 in 
program subsidies to support a loan level of $1,111,111,000. 
This subsidy amount is equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
subsidy level and $1,000,000 less than the budget request. The 
Committee directs the Department to submit a report to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of 
enactment of this act on how HUD has utilized the funding 
provided for administrative contract expenses including 
management processes and systems. This report should include at 
a minimum: to what extent applicable Office of Native American 
Assistance Programs [ONAP] systems have been carried out in 
coordination with the Office of the Chief Information Officer; 
and what improvements in management and oversight have been 
implemented since March 2014 to prevent fraud.

                   Community Planning and Development


              HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $330,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     332,000,000
House allowance.........................................     335,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     330,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $330,000,000 
for the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS [HOPWA] 
program. This level of funding is $2,000,000 less than the 
President's budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level. The Committee continues to include language 
requiring HUD to allocate these funds in a manner that 
preserves existing HOPWA programs, to the extent that those 
programs are determined to be meeting the needs of persons with 
HIV/AIDS.
    HOPWA Formula Modernization.--The Committee recommendation 
includes a change to the HOPWA formula requested in the 
President's budget and part of the administration's 
comprehensive National HIV/AIDS Strategy. Currently, 53 percent 
of the statutorily required cumulative AIDS cases used to 
determine the formula program represent deceased individuals. 
The Committee 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 10 
percent or gaining more than 20 percent of the average share of 
the total formula allocation of the previous fiscal year.

                       COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2015....................................  $3,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................   2,800,000,000
House allowance.........................................   3,000,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,900,000,000

Note: Amounts above exclude funding provided or requested for the Indian 
Community Development Block Grant Program. These funds are reflected in 
the Indian Block Grants account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided $2,900,000,000 for Community 
Development Block Grants [CDBG]. The recommended amount is 
$100,000,000 more than the budget request and $100,000,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. CDBG funding provides 
States and entitlement communities with resources that allow 
them to undertake a wide range of community development 
activities, including public infrastructure improvements, 
housing rehabilitation and construction, job creation and 
retention, and public services that primarily benefit low and 
moderate income persons.
    The flexibility associated with CDBG enables State and 
local governments to tailor solutions to effectively meet the 
unique needs of their communities. The 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 low- and-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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account     guaranteed
                                                              loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2015..................  ...............     $500,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................  ...............      300,000,000
House allowance.......................  ...............      300,000,000
Committee recommendation..............  ...............      300,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation provides a loan level 
guarantee of $300,000,000, which is $200,000,000 below the 
fiscal year 2015 enacted level and equal to the budget request. 
The Committee requires HUD to collect fees to offset credit 
subsidy costs such that the program operates at a zero credit 
subsidy cost.
    This program enables CDBG recipients to use their CDBG 
dollars to leverage financing for economic development 
projects, community facilities, and housing rehabilitation 
programs. Communities are allowed to borrow up to five times 
their most recent CDBG allocation.
    The Committee expects HUD to ensure that a financing 
structure is in place by the beginning of the fiscal year so 
that this important program remains available to communities. 
In addition, HUD must provide communities with information and 
any technical assistance they may need to successfully utilize 
the program.

                  HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $900,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................   1,060,000,000
House allowance\1\......................................     900,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      66,000,000

\1\House allowance includes a $133,000,000 transfer from the Housing 
Trust Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $66,000,000 
for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This amount is 
$834,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The 
amount is $994,000,000 less than the budget request, but the 
budget also proposes to fund a $10,000,000 Self-Help and 
Assisted Homeownership Program [SHOP] program out of this 
account, which the Committee has rejected.
    The Committee notes the substantial gains made by HOME in 
increasing the supply and affordability of housing for low-
income families. According to the April 2015 HOME National 
Production Report, since 1992 States and localities have used 
HOME funds to produce 497,368 homebuyer homes, 468,990 rental 
homes, and 232,785 rehabilitated owner-occupied homes. Another 
300,708 families have received tenant-based rental assistance 
through the HOME program. HOME has been particularly successful 
in helping extremely low-income families (at or below 30 
percent of area median income) who have received 40 percent of 
assistance for affordable rental housing during the past 5 
years. The Committee recommendation includes a provision that 
makes an exception to the 30-day eviction notice in instances 
where a tenant poses a threat. Similar exceptions are 
authorized in other housing assistance programs.
    Community Land Trusts.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of preserving affordable homeownership 
opportunities, especially when change in ownership is 
initiated. The Committee includes a provision to clarify 
existing authority to continue allowing Community Land Trusts 
to exercise purchase options, rights of first refusal, or other 
preemptive rights to purchase housing on their trusted land to 
ensure affordability is maintained through ownership changes.

        SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $50,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................................
House allowance.........................................      50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      55,700,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity 
Program is comprised of the Self-Help Homeownership Program 
[SHOP], which assists low-income homebuyers willing to 
contribute ``sweat equity'' toward the construction of their 
houses. These funds increase nonprofit organizations' ability 
to leverage funds from other sources. This account also 
includes funding for the Capacity Building for Community 
Development and Affordable Housing Program, as well as 
assistance to rural communities as authorized under sections 
6301 through 6305 of Public Law 110-246, and funds the 
rehabilitation and modifications homes for Veterans that are 
low-income and disabled as authorized by Section 1079 of Public 
Law 113-291. These programs help to develop the capacity of 
nonprofit community development organizations to carry out 
community development and affordable housing projects.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $55,700,000 for the Self-Help and 
Assisted Homeownership Program, which is $5,700,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2015 enacted level, and $55,700,000 more than 
the request. The Committee rejects the Administration's 
proposal to shift a portion of the funding for these activities 
to the HOME program, and make the section 4 program activities 
an eligible activity of the proposed Transformation Initiative. 
The Committee supports leaving this heading as a standalone 
account and opposes efforts to shift these funds into other 
accounts. The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for 
SHOP, as authorized under section 11 of the Housing Opportunity 
Extension Act of 1996; $35,000,000 for capacity building as 
authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993; 
$5,000,000 to carry out capacity building activities in rural 
communities; and, $5,700,000 million for a program to rehab and 
modify housing for Veterans that are low-income and disabled. 
The Committee notes that funding for technical assistance is 
being provided under the Office of Policy Development and 
Research and directs funds available for section 4 to be used 
solely for capacity building activities.
    The Rural Capacity Building Program is intended for truly 
national organizations. For the purposes of the National Rural 
Capacity Building Notification of Funding Availably [NOFA], the 
Committee directs HUD to define an eligible national 
organization as a nonprofit entity that has on-going experience 
in rural housing, including experience working with rural 
housing organizations, local governments, and Indian tribes, as 
evidenced by past and continuing work in one or more States in 
eight or more of HUD's Federal regions.
    Energy Star.--The Committee remains concerned that the 
Energy Star requirements in the SHOP Notice of Funding 
Availability [NOFA] while well-intentioned may increase costs 
in a time that limited resources should be targeted to 
producing homes that comply with local building and safety 
codes. In fiscal year 2015, the Committee directed the 
Department to submit a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations within 120 days of enactment of 
this act that evaluates: (1) if the Energy Star requirement in 
this program's NOFA are consistent with Energy Star 
requirements across HUD programs; and (2) if this requirement 
is a barrier to participation, especially in rural areas, 
considering factors such as the cost of certifications, access 
to Home Energy Raters or certified HVAC contractors, or the 
mortgage now exceeding USDA's Area Loan Limits. The Committee 
notes that the report is overdue and reminds the Department of 
this requirement.
    Program to Rehabilitate or Modify Housing for Disabled and 
Low-Income Veterans.--About 5.5 million of our Nation's 
Veterans have disabilities and 1.4 million are at risk of 
homelessness. For Veterans returning home with severe injuries 
such as amputation, readjustment can be hampered by the lack of 
a wheelchair ramp. Some older Veterans, who served honorably 
years ago, must navigate stairs that present a falling hazard, 
roofs that leak, or homes without heat or hot water.
    These problems are partially addressed through programs 
such as the Specially Adapted Housing [SAH] program 
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs which 
provides grants to eligible disabled Veterans and 
servicemembers for housing adaptations due to disability. 
However, SAH does not fully address all Veterans with 
disabilities and it does not provide for low-income Veterans 
who have homes in need of urgent repairs. In response, Congress 
authorized a program to help enhance programs like SAH in the 
Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act to provide 
competitive grants through HUD to non-profit organizations to 
rehab and modify housing for Veterans. The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,700,000 for this new initiative to 
help some of the more than 50,000 Veterans wounded in recent 
conflicts and millions of disabled and low-income Veterans in 
need of safer housing.

                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2015....................................  $2,135,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................   2,480,000,000
House allowance.........................................   2,185,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,235,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Homeless Assistance Grants Program provides funding to 
break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons 
and families to permanent housing. This is done by providing 
rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and 
permanent housing, prevention, rapid re-housing, and supportive 
services to homeless persons and families or those at risk of 
homelessness. The 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 $2,235,000,000 
for Homeless Assistance Grants in fiscal year 2016. This amount 
is $245,000,000 less than the President's request, and 
$100,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
    As part of the Committee recommendation, at least 
$1,918,000,000 will support the Continuum of Care Program, 
including the renewal of existing projects, and the Rural 
Housing Stability Assistance Program. Based on the renewal 
burden, HUD may also support planning and other activities 
authorized by the HEARTH Act. The recommendation also includes 
at least $250,000,000 for the emergency solutions grants 
program [ESG].
    The Committee supports HUD's efforts to leverage existing 
housing resources, such as section 8 vouchers, to serve the 
homeless. The Committee also supports replacing existing, 
underperforming projects with new permanent supportive housing 
projects. Therefore, if funds remain available in this account 
after meeting renewal demands and funding ESG, HUD may use it 
for new projects, provided that such projects are targeted to 
areas with the greatest need, as measured by homeless data.
    Data on Youth Homelessness.--The Committee believes an 
accurate count is critical to understanding the scale of youth 
homelessness. The Annual Homelessness Assessment Report [AHAR] 
provides Congress and the public with meaningful information on 
the progress in ending homelessness. It is based on the point-
in time counts conducted by local communities and information 
from the Homelessness Management Information Systems [HMIS]. 
However, other Federal agencies have youth-specific data that 
can help communities better understand the scope of youth 
homelessness and housing instability in their area. The 
Committee directs HUD to incorporate additional Federal data on 
youth homelessness into the AHAR. This information is important 
to ensure that communities develop and implement policies that 
respond to the local needs of homeless youth. The Committee 
recommendation also provides up to $2,000,000 to fund a 
national study, as authorized by the Runaway and Homeless Youth 
Act, on the prevalence, needs, and characteristics of 
homelessness among youth and directs the Department to work 
with the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct 
this critical research.
    Comprehensive Interventions to Prevent and End Youth 
Homelessness.-- The Committee also recognizes that there is a 
lack of empirical data on youth appropriate solutions for 
ending homelessness. The Committee recommendation includes 
$33,000,000 for a pilot to implement comprehensive approaches 
to serving homeless youth in up to 10 communities, of which at 
least 4 are to be in rural areas.
    Clarifying Eligibility and Documentation Requirements for 
Homeless Youth.--The Committee is concerned that service 
providers are turning homeless youth away due to a lack of 
clarity on HUD's existing eligibility and documentation 
requirements. While HUD has issued some guidance on how youth 
qualify for assistance under the current definition, service 
providers remain challenged with identifying and serving youth 
who are unaccompanied or head of household, faced with domestic 
violence, trafficking, or other unsafe circumstances--the most 
vulnerable and hard-to-reach homeless youth--due to lack of 
clarity in HUD's regulation and guidance. The Committee 
continues to hear from service providers that documentation 
requirements pose a barrier for individuals and families, 
especially youth, to access HUD programs and services. The 
Committee includes language that waives the requirement for 
youth 24 and under to provide third-party documentation to 
receive housing and supportive services within the Continuums 
of Care. The Committee strongly believes documentation 
requirements should not be a basis for denying access to 
necessary services. The Committee directs HUD to issue 
clarifying guidance, through notice and Web casts, on homeless 
youth eligibility criteria to ensure no youth eligible go 
unserved where there is the local capacity to house and/or 
provide services.
    Training and Technical Assistance.--The Committee believes 
that in addition to clarifying its policies, HUD must also work 
to strengthen its partnerships with other Federal agencies to 
seek comprehensive and cross-agency solutions to youth 
homelessness. The Committee recognizes that it can be difficult 
for local communities, as well as housing and service 
providers, to navigate different Federal program rules, 
requirements and cultures. The Committee is reminded of similar 
challenges between local Continuums of Care and VA Medical 
Centers when VASH vouchers were initially funded. Collaborative 
training sessions at the local level that included not just HUD 
and VA headquarters staff, but also service providers and the 
local HUD and VA staff were critical to overcoming many of 
these barriers. In order to improve the effectiveness of 
service delivery for homeless youth at the local level, HUD, in 
coordination with the United States Interagency Council on 
Homelessness is directed to hold similar cross-agency trainings 
at the local level. These trainings should include, but not be 
limited to the Departments of Education and Health and Human 
Services, and local service providers, including homeless 
education liaisons and child welfare representatives. The 
Committee encourages the Department to design trainings that 
eliminate confusion about eligibility requirements, improve 
processes for youth who need to access housing and services, 
and help communities develop policies to ensure that 
appropriate resources are dedicated to homeless youth. The 
Committee has included $5,000,000 to support this and other 
technical assistance efforts addressing youth homelessness. 
These technical assistance funds may also be used in 
conjunction with the comprehensive pilot funded under this 
heading.
    Performance Partnership Pilots.--The Committee has included 
language permitting HUD to partner with other Federal agencies 
in the Performance Partnership Pilot program, a cross-Federal 
agency initiative serving disconnected youth through 
innovative, cost-effective, and outcome-focused strategies. The 
Committee believes there is a critical role HUD can play in 
this pilot, especially as communities seek to address the 
housing and self-sufficiency needs of disconnected youth.
    HUD shall inform the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations no later than 45 days after enactment of this 
act, how the Department will strategically align within the 
Performance Partnership Pilot program. This shall also include 
(1) the amount and source of funding the Department will 
allocate to the pilot; (2) the Department's role in grantee 
criteria and selection processes, and; (3) the Department's 
role in oversight and accountability for its contributions. Not 
later than 15 days after pilots have been announced, the 
Department shall brief the Committees on the scope of each 
pilot project, including goals, objectives and intended 
outcomes, and an outline of specific metrics that will be used 
to evaluate and determine the effectiveness of the pilot 
project and its outcomes.
    Annual Homeless Assessment Report.--AHAR is a result of 
Congressional directives beginning in 2001, that charged the 
Department to collect data on homelessness, using the newly 
implemented Homeless Management Information System [HMIS]. HMIS 
data, information provided by Continuums of Care, and a point-
in-time count of sheltered and unsheltered persons from one 
night in January of each year informs AHAR. The Committee is 
encouraged that HUD is sharing homeless data widely, and that 
Federal, State and local service providers use AHAR to 
determine needs and develop strategies to address homelessness.
    The Committee believes HMIS can be used as a platform for 
information gathering in other Federal programs. Streamlining 
data to reflect the various Federal data sources will allow the 
Federal Government to better understand the scope and needs of 
homeless populations, to then inform a strategic alignment of 
Federal services. The Committee directs HUD to incorporate 
additional Federal data on homelessness in the AHAR. This 
information is important to ensure that communities develop and 
implement policies that respond to local needs. To support 
continued data collection and AHAR, the Committee has included 
$7,000,000 to support AHAR data collection and analysis. The 
Department shall submit the AHAR report by August 29, 2016. The 
Committee further hopes that HUD's efforts to increase 
participation in the HMIS effort will lead to improved 
information about and understanding of the Nation's homeless.
    Renewal Costs.--The Committee directs HUD to continue to 
include 5-year projections of the costs of renewing existing 
projects as part of the fiscal year 2017 budget justification. 
This should include estimated costs of renewing permanent 
supportive housing.

                            Housing Programs


                    PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2015....................................  $9,730,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................  10,760,000,000
House allowance.........................................  10,654,000,000
Committee recommendation................................  10,826,000,000

                          PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The section 8 project-based rental assistance [PBRA] 
program supports an estimated 17,400 contracts with private 
owners of multifamily housing. Through this program, HUD and 
private sector partners support the preservation of safe, 
stable and sanitary housing for more than 1.2 million low-
income Americans. Without PBRA, many affordable housing 
projects would convert to market rates with large rent 
increases that current tenants would be unable to afford.
    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$10,826,000,000 for the annual renewal of project-based 
contracts, of which up to $215,000,000 is for the cost of 
contract administrators. The recommended level of funding is 
$1,096,000,000 more than the amount provided in fiscal year 
2015 and is $66,000,000 more than the budget request. The 
Committee's recommendation rejects the administration's 
proposed change to the medical deduction calculation, which 
results in the increased funding above the requested level. The 
Committee again rejects the administration's proposal to renew 
senior preservation rental assistance contracts [SPRAC] in this 
account. These contracts were originally funded in the Housing 
for the Elderly account and renewal funding is again provided 
under that heading.
    The Committee recommendation completes the process of 
shifting the funding cycle for contract renewals to a calendar 
year basis. This funding cycle is consistent with the practices 
for the tenant-based rental assistance and public housing 
programs.
    Performance-Based Contract Administrators.--Performance-
based contract administrators [PBCAs] are typically public 
housing authorities or State housing finance agencies. They are 
responsible for conducting on-site management reviews of 
assisted properties; adjusting contract rents; and reviewing, 
processing, and paying monthly vouchers submitted by owners. 
The Committee notes that PBCAs are integral to the Department's 
efforts to be more effective and efficient in the oversight and 
monitoring of this program. The Committee believes that fair 
and open competition is the best way to ensure that the 
taxpayer receives the greatest benefit for the costs incurred. 
Now that the previous litigation has been resolved, the 
Department is directed to ensure that the PBCA selection 
process is, to the greatest extent legally permissible, full, 
open, and fair.
    Oversight of Property Owners.--The Committee places a 
priority on providing access to safe, sanitary, and affordable 
housing to those most in need. If owners fail to maintain their 
properties in accordance with HUD standards, they should be 
held accountable. While there is a tension between holding 
property owners responsible and ensuring tenants don't lose 
their housing, HUD has tools at its disposal to hold owners 
accountable without putting tenants at risk.
    HUD has taken important steps to increase its oversight of 
multifamily properties. These steps include: completing a risk 
rating assessment for all PBRA properties, assigning Project 
Managers to address performance problems at troubled assets, 
and using inspections by the Real Estate Assessment Center 
[REAC] to identify physical and financial issues. Properties 
with physical inspection scores below 30 are referred to the 
Departmental Enforcement Center [DEC] for further intervention. 
DEC may pursue civil penalties or other enforcement measures. 
To ensure continued attention to this issue, the Committee 
recommendation maintains a general provision that requires HUD 
to take specific steps to ensure that physical deficiencies in 
properties are quickly addressed, and requires the Secretary to 
take explicit actions if the owner fails to maintain them. 
These actions include imposing civil money penalties, working 
to secure a different owner for the property, or transferring 
the section 8 contract to another the property. The Committee 
wants to preserve critical project-based section 8 contracts, 
and believes this goal can be achieved while holding property 
owners accountable for their actions.
    The Committee expects HUD to continue to move quickly to 
identify problem properties and owners and find an appropriate 
remedy. The Committee directs HUD to provide semi-annual 
reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on 
the number of projects that receive multiple exigent health and 
safety violations or physical inspection scores below 30. HUD 
shall also identify the actions taken to address safety 
concerns, including the frequency with which civil money 
penalties are imposed, contracts are transferred to another 
property, or ownership is transferred. The Committee expects 
that with increased enforcement the number of troubled 
properties will continue to be reduced.

                        HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $420,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     455,000,000
House allowance.........................................     416,500,000
Committee recommendation................................     420,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The section 202 program provides nearly 400,000 federally 
assisted, privately owned affordable housing units for the 
elderly. The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$420,000,000 for the section 202 program. This level is equal 
to the level provided in fiscal year 2015 and $35,000,000 less 
than the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes 
$343,000,000 in new appropriations in addition to carryover 
balances and residual receipts to fully fund all annual 
project-rental assistance contract renewals and amendments, and 
$77,000,000 for service coordinators and the continuation of 
existing congregate service grants.
    Housing with Services Models for the Elderly.--In fiscal 
year 2014, the Committee provided funding for a demonstration 
program to test different models of housing with services for 
the elderly. The Committee is concerned that the Department's 
demonstration program may have the unintended consequence of 
excluding properties that are not located in large metropolitan 
areas. Such properties tend to be smaller, and according to the 
Department, only 18 percent of HUD-assisted multifamily 
properties for the elderly in rural areas have a service 
coordinator. In fact, the more rural the property, the less 
likely it is to have a service coordinator. For these reasons, 
the Committee urges HUD to partner with other Federal agencies 
in order to pursue a demonstration design on service 
coordination that is adapted to non-metropolitan areas. In 
order to implement such a design, however, HUD will need to 
address challenges such as low population density, large 
geographic distances, limited public transportation, workforce 
shortages, limited housing stock, fewer multidisciplinary 
staff, and less care coordination. Recognizing these 
challenges, the time constraints of the original funding 
provided, and the need for improved coordination and 
partnership across Federal agencies, the Committee does not 
direct the Department to delay the current demonstration design 
until a non-metropolitan component is designed.
    The Committee recommendation permits the Department to 
collect residual receipts, and to the extent such amounts 
exceed any remaining renewal and amendment needs, those funds 
may first be used to carry out a model design component on 
housing with services for the elderly located in non-
metropolitan areas. Remaining funds may be used to supplement 
the Department's current demonstration.

                 HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $135,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     177,000,000
House allowance.........................................     152,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     137,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $137,000,000 
for the section 811 program. This level is $40,000,000 less 
than the budget request and is $2,000,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2015 enacted level. This level of funding, in addition to 
residual receipts, recaptures, and other unobligated balances, 
supports all PRAC renewals and amendments. Should the total 
available resources exceed the need for renewals, the Secretary 
shall direct such resources to a new competition for project 
rental assistance to State housing finance agencies.

                     HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $47,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      60,000,000
House allowance.........................................      47,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      47,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $47,000,000 
for the Housing Counseling Assistance program, which is 
$13,000,000 less than the budget request and equal to the 
fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The funds provided will help 
individuals and families across the country make better 
informed housing decisions. Specifically, it will support 
competitive counseling grants and training activities. In 
addition, the administrative contract support funding includes 
resources for financial audits and technical assistance.
    The Committee continues language requiring HUD to obligate 
counseling grants within 180 days of enactment of this act, as 
well as permitting HUD to publish multiyear NOFAs, contingent 
on annual appropriations. This should result in administrative 
savings for HUD and grantees.

                       RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $18,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      30,000,000
House allowance.........................................      30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      30,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,000,000 
for HUD-assisted, State-aided, noninsured rental housing 
projects, consistent with the budget request. This amount is 
$12,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The 
Committee recommendation includes a provision to allow the 
conversion of these projects to section 8, at no additional 
cost. The Committee hopes that the conversion of these 
projects, through the Rental Assistance Demonstration, will 
lead to the eventual elimination of these outdated programs.

            PAYMENT TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      11,000,000
House allowance.........................................      11,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support the 
manufactured housing standards programs, of which the full 
amount of $10,000,000 is expected to be derived from fees 
collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust 
Fund account. No direct appropriation is provided. The total 
amount recommended is $1,000,000 less than the budget request 
and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
    The Committee continues language allowing the Department to 
collect fees from program participants for the dispute 
resolution and installment programs mandated by the 
Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. These fees are to 
be deposited into the Trust Fund and may be used to support the 
manufactured housing standards programs subject to the overall 
cap placed on the account. The Committee expects the Department 
to move forward with this authority.
    The Committee notes that carryover in the program, along 
with increased label fees, will allow HUD to continue its 
current activities. The Committee recognizes that manufactured 
housing production has declined substantially since peak 
industry production in 1998. The Committee is perplexed as to 
the reason for the continual growth in expenditures for the 
program which do not reflect or correspond with this decline.

                     Federal Housing Administration


               MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on       Limitation on      Administrative
                                                         direct loans      guaranteed loans    contract expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2015................................    $400,000,000,000         $20,000,000        $130,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...............................     400,000,000,000           5,000,000         174,000,000
House allowance.....................................     400,000,000,000           5,000,000         130,000,000
Committee recommendation............................     400,000,000,000           5,000,000         130,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Limitation on       Limitation on
                                     direct loans      guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2015............     $30,000,000,000         $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...........      30,000,000,000           5,000,000
House allowance.................      30,000,000,000           5,000,000
Committee recommendation........      30,000,000,000           5,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has included the following amounts for the 
Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program account: a limitation on 
guaranteed loans of $400,000,000,000, a limitation on direct 
loans of $5,000,000, and $130,000,000 for administrative 
contract expenses.
    For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends 
$30,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans and a 
limitation on direct loans of $5,000,000.
    Following the housing crisis, FHA's role in the housing 
market expanded considerably, as it played the countercyclical 
role for which it was designed. While FHA played a critical 
role in ensuring a functioning housing finance market during 
the crisis, its expanded role came with additional risk. As a 
result of its increased role in the market, as well as poor 
quality loans in its portfolio that were insured under laxer 
requirements, FHA suffered significant losses. This ultimately 
resulted in FHA seeking $1,700,000,000 from Treasury at the end 
of fiscal year 2013 to cover expected losses--the first time 
FHA needed to draw on taxpayer funding in its history.
    Beginning in 2009, this administration implemented policies 
to tighten lending standards and increase premiums. These 
changes have improved the quality of its loans and increased 
the solvency of the MMI Fund. As a result of the increased fees 
and improvements in its loss mitigation strategies, the MMI 
Fund is not expected to require any additional funding from 
Treasury, and has been on a strong trajectory to reach the 2 
percent capital requirement. However, the administration's 
decision to reduce annual mortgage insurance premiums has 
setback that effort. While the Committee is pleased that the 
condition of the fund is improving, it expects HUD to remain 
focused on the fund's financial health.
    Administrative Fee.--The Committee supports the goal of 
improving FHA's risk management and quality control efforts and 
has included resources to do so. The Committee is disappointed 
that the budget request proposing a new fee to offset 
administrative costs is the same language as in fiscal year 
2015. Numerous concerns were raised by stakeholders in reaction 
to the 2015 request, yet the 2016 budget request fails to 
address those concerns. As such, the Committee does not include 
authority for HUD to charge a fee to provide additional funds 
for FHA's administrative costs. Despite the exclusion of the 
proposed fee, the Committee continues to stress that FHA needs 
to provide clear and consistent guidance to lenders so that 
they can better assess risk associated with the mortgages they 
originate. The Committee also encourages FHA's stakeholders to 
take into consideration that such guidance and clarity may be 
difficult without the additional resources such a fee would 
provide. Finally, the Committee encourages FHA and its partners 
to work together to address their mutual challenges.
    Multifamily Housing.--The Committee is concerned that HUD's 
2012 changes to its Project Capital Needs Assessment for 
multifamily lenders, while well intentioned, may have the 
unintended consequence of unduly constraining credit that is 
necessary for the development of affordable multifamily 
housing. To address this concern, the Committee directs HUD to 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
within 30 days of enactment on the data supporting the merits 
of continuing the changes included in Notice H-2012-27. In 
particular, the report should include a review of changes to 
the initial reserve calculations and replacement reserve 
calculations, and a recommendation on whether a clearer 
definition of intrusive testing requirements would benefit HUD 
and lenders without creating additional risk.

                Government National Mortgage Association


GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on
                                                          personnel,
                                     Limitation on     compensation and
                                   guaranteed loans     administrative
                                                           expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2015............    $500,000,000,000         $23,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...........     500,000,000,000          28,320,000
House allowance.................     500,000,000,000          23,000,000
Committee recommendation........     500,000,000,000          23,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments on 
mortgage-backed securities of $500,000,000,000. This level is 
the same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level. The bill allows Ginnie Mae to use $23,000,000 for 
salaries and expenses. This is equal to the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level and $5,320,000 less than the budget request.

                    Policy Development and Research


                        RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $72,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      50,000,000
House allowance.........................................      50,000,000
Committee recommendation\1\.............................      90,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes $40,000,000 by transfer.

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, 
as amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development to undertake programs of research, 
evaluation, and reports relating to the Department's mission 
and programs. These functions are carried out internally and 
through grants and contracts with industry, nonprofit research 
organizations, 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 $50,000,000 
for research, technology, and community development activities 
in fiscal year 2016. This level is $22,000,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2015 enacted level and equal to the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation will continue to support 
market surveys, such as the American Housing Survey, that are 
integral to HUD's ability to understand its own programs and 
also help enhance public and private entities' knowledge of 
housing conditions in the United States. The Committee strongly 
encourages the Department to continue funding local rent 
surveys of areas affected by changing economic conditions and 
natural disasters.
    Fair Market Rents [FMRs] are used to across HUD rental 
assistance programs. However, in certain counties the current 
methodology does not accurately reflect the current housing 
market, and additional local area surveys are necessary. The 
Committee recommends that HUD designate funding for additional 
local surveys for communities where the data used by HUD does 
not accurately reflect the market.
    The Committee also continues language that allows HUD to 
enter into cooperative agreements, which allows the Office of 
Policy Development and Research to partner with other Federal 
agencies, researchers, or foundations on research that will 
inform HUD's understanding of its programs and the people who 
rely on them. This structure reduces duplicative research by 
leveraging existing projects to meet the needs of different 
stakeholders. The Committee encourages HUD to continue to 
maximize this authority.
    In addition, the Committee includes up to $40,000,000 for 
Department-wide technical assistance and critical research 
beyond the core studies, which will be funded through transfers 
of up to 0.1 percent from HUD programs. In fiscal year 2015, 
$22,000,000 was provided as a direct appropriation for 
technical assistance.
    The Committee directs that funds transferred into this 
account may only come from the following accounts: Choice 
Neighborhoods Initiative, Community Development Fund, Fair 
Housing Activities, Family Self-Sufficiency, HOME Investment 
Partnerships Program, Housing Counseling Assistance, Housing 
for Persons with Disabilities, Housing for the Elderly, Indian 
Block Grants, Lead Hazard Reduction, Mutual Mortgage Insurance 
Program Account, Project-Based Rental Assistance, Public 
Housing Capital Fund, Public Housing Operating Fund, Rental 
Housing Assistance, Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership 
Opportunity Program, and Tenant-Based Rental Assistance.
    Within the amount transferred, at least $30,000,000 is for 
technical assistance [TA] across HUD programs. Of the amount 
for TA, at least $5,000,000 is to support TA in Indian Country 
including the inspection of Indian housing units, contract 
expertise, training, and technical assistance in the training, 
oversight, and management of such Indian housing and tenant-
based assistance. TA for Indian Country shall be provided by 
providers with experience and expertise in addressing the needs 
of Indian tribes. Of the overall amount for TA, at least 
$5,000,000 is for training public housing agencies on finance 
and governance.
    Funds transferred also provide funding for research to help 
improve program understanding and service delivery. Of the 
amount provided, the recommendation includes: at least 
$2,000,000 for grants to develop innovative approaches to the 
design and construction of affordable, accessible, and 
desirable housing for the disabled; $400,000 for an evaluation 
of Energy Performance Contracts in public housing; $800,000 for 
multidisciplinary research teams; $1,000,000 for tracking 
outcomes of the Jobs-Plus pilot program; $900,000 for an 
assessment of HUD's technical assistance to program grantees; 
$500,000 for facilitating the adoption of new building 
technologies by small and medium builders; and $250,000 to 
develop best practices and models to assist communities in 
developing pre-disaster mitigation plans and long term 
strategies. In addition, the Committee includes funding for the 
following projects:
    Evaluation of Programs Serving Homeless Youth.--Opening 
Doors: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End 
Homelessness established a goal to end homelessness among 
children, family and youth by 2020. However, the data on youth 
that experience homelessness is extremely limited. HUD's 2014 
Point-in-Time Count, which the Department acknowledges is an 
undercount, identified 45,205 unaccompanied homeless children 
and youth (defined as single individuals, aged 24 or younger 
experiencing homelessness without a parent or guardian) 
experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2014. 
Additionally, the evidence base for charting a path to end 
homelessness among youth is decidedly weaker than the evidence 
base for ending chronic homelessness or homelessness among 
veterans. The Framework to End Youth Homelessness, released in 
2013, identifies the need to both better estimate the 
prevalence of youth homelessness and identify the array of 
housing and service interventions that would be needed to end 
homelessness among youth. This research will improve the 
understanding of which interventions work best for which types 
of youth to better align the available housing and services 
interventions with the youth who need them. The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,500,000 for this study.
    Utility Allowance Comparison Study.--Utility service to a 
residence is an intrinsic element in the cost of shelter. HUD 
currently spends over $6,000,000,000 per year on utilities, 
which includes the reimbursement and subsidy of public or 
assisted housing utility costs. Some resident's utility costs 
are paid directly by the public housing authority or assisted 
project owner, and HUD reimburses the payee. For tenants who 
pay the cost of their own utilities, public housing authorities 
or owners base the paid amount on an estimated utility 
allowance that is determined by the characteristics of the 
unit, the regional climate, and local tariffs. The current 
regulations on setting utility allowances have been in place 
for approximately 40 years, and give considerable discretion to 
the local agency or owner, and predate national household data 
on utility use by region and structure type. A HUD model based 
on Department of Energy data for such estimates has been 
available to agencies and owners for some time, but HUD has not 
mandated its use, partly because the Department does not know 
what the budget implications of such a mandate would be. The 
Committee directs the Department to add a component to the 
existing Quality Control study (previously funded for 
measurement of improper payments with a representative national 
sample of assisted tenants) that will compare the costs of the 
current system of utility allowances, costs under mandated use 
of the HUD model, and a model based on actual payments by 
assisted tenants. The Committee includes $725,000 for this 
study.
    HUD shall include details on its allocation of these 
resources in its operating plan.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity


                        FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $65,300,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      71,000,000
House allowance.........................................      65,300,000
Committee recommendation................................      65,300,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $65,300,000 
for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity [OFHEO]. 
This amount is $5,700,000 less than the budget request and 
equal to the 2015 enacted level. Of the amounts provided, 
$23,300,000 is for FHAP, $40,100,000 is for FHIP, and $300,000 
is for the creation, promotion, and dissemination of translated 
materials that support the assistance of persons with limited 
English proficiency. The Committee also provides $1,600,000 for 
the National Fair Housing Training Academy, and encourages the 
Department to pursue ways to make the Academy self-sustaining.

            Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $110,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     120,000,000
House allowance.........................................      75,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     110,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $110,00,000 
for lead-based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities 
for fiscal year 2016, of which $25,000,000 is for the Healthy 
Homes Initiative. Of this amount, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $45,000,000 for the Lead Hazard Reduction 
Program, which was established in fiscal year 2003 to focus on 
major urban areas where children are disproportionately at risk 
for lead poisoning. This amount is $10,000,000 less than the 
President's budget request and equal to the amount available in 
fiscal year 2015.

                      Information Technology Fund

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $250,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     334,000,000
House allowance.........................................      97,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     250,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $250,000,000 
for the Information Technology Fund for fiscal year 2016, which 
is $84,000,000 less than the budget request and equal to the 
fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
    The Committee has been very supportive of HUD's efforts to 
modernize its IT systems, which are critical to effectively 
overseeing its programs. For years, HUD has been hampered by 
outdated IT systems that aren't integrated, which limit its 
ability to manage and oversee grantees. In addition, HUD's 
efforts to work around system limitations to collect 
information for oversight purposes often results in increased 
work for grantees who have to input information into multiple 
systems. The Committee recognizes HUD's effort to better 
integrate systems, but there is still more work to be done, and 
IT system integration should remain a top priority for the 
Department.
    The Committee recognizes that development of more 
sophisticated systems may come with higher costs associated 
with the additional capabilities HUD is getting. At the same 
time, HUD must also achieve savings by eliminating legacy 
systems and old servers. The Committee directs HUD to be more 
diligent in identifying and achieving savings by retiring old 
systems and shutting off redundant and inefficient servers. In 
addition, the Committee urges HUD to continue to look for 
savings when it renews contracts to reduce the ongoing costs of 
operating and maintaining its IT systems. The Committee notes 
that the Department has yet to submit reports, as directed by 
the Committee last year, articulating how the Department is 
implementing GAO's IT-related recommendations, and identifying 
savings it will achieve by retiring legacy systems and shutting 
off old servers. The Committee directs the Chief Operating 
Officer and the Chief Information Officer to ensure reports are 
submitted in a timely manner and include all required 
information.
    The Committee is also concerned about the development of IT 
systems outside of the Information Technology Fund. While the 
Committee understands that limited resources may prompt HUD 
offices to develop solutions with their own resources, the 
Committee expects that, at a minimum, OCIO will monitor and 
oversee the development of any such solutions. The Committee 
directs the OCIO to monitor the development of new system 
solutions by every office in HUD to make sure they conform to 
HUD's enterprise architecture, and will be compatible with 
systems under development.
    GAO Oversight.--Since 2010, the Committee has required HUD 
to submit an expenditure plan outlining its IT modernization 
projects before it could spend a portion of its IT funding. The 
plans were reviewed by GAO to determine if they satisfied the 
statutory requirements. Based on reports and briefings from GAO 
over the past few years, the Committee recognizes the progress 
HUD has made in its IT modernization planning efforts, and the 
focus must now be on its implementation of the plans and 
execution of the projects. The Committee emphasizes the 
importance of pursuing a strategic approach as HUD continues to 
improve its IT management. To this end, in order to monitor the 
Department's progress, the Committee instructed GAO in 2012 to 
conduct several reviews. In 2013, GAO completed a review of the 
Department's IT project management practices. The Committee 
reaffirms its direction to GAO to also evaluate HUD's 
institutionalization of governance and cost estimating 
practices. In particular, the Committee remains interested in 
any cost savings or operational efficiencies that have resulted 
(or may result) from the Department's improvement efforts. The 
Committee appreciates the work that GAO has done in this area 
and believes it has benefited the Committee and the 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, 2015....................................    $126,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     129,000,000
House allowance.........................................     126,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     126,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $126,000,000 
for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. The amount of 
funding is equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and 
$3,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee is disappointed that it is compelled to 
remind the Inspector General of directions and reporting 
requirements included in the fiscal year 2015 report. 
Specifically, the OIG is reminded of the requirement to submit 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a spending 
plan detailing its intended information technology acquisitions 
in fiscal year 2015 and the requirement to report to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations identifying the OIG's 
current information technology structure, systems and baseline 
costs, as well as its information technology strategy for 
fiscal year 2015 and future fiscal years. The Committee 
includes these same requirements and deadlines again for fiscal 
year 2016.

    GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommends administrative provisions. A brief 
description follows.
    Sec. 201. This section promotes the refinancing of certain 
housing bonds.
    Sec. 202. This section clarifies a limitation on the use of 
funds under the Fair Housing Act.
    Sec. 203. This section clarifies the allocation of HOPWA 
funding for fiscal year 2006 and beyond.
    Sec. 204. This section requires HUD to award funds on a 
competitive basis unless otherwise provided.
    Sec. 205. This section allows funds to be used to reimburse 
GSEs and other Federal entities for various administrative 
expenses.
    Sec. 206. This section limits HUD spending to amounts set 
out in the budget justification.
    Sec. 207. This section clarifies expenditure authority for 
entities subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
    Sec. 208. This section requires quarterly reports on all 
uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD 
programs.
    Sec. 209. This section exempts Los Angeles County, Alaska, 
Iowa, and Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA 
resident on the board of directors for fiscal year 2016. 
Instead, the public housing agencies in these States are 
required to establish advisory boards that include public 
housing tenants and section 8 recipients.
    Sec. 210. This section exempts GNMA from certain 
requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
    Sec. 211. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer 
of existing project-based subsidies and liabilities from 
obsolete housing to housing that better meets the needs of the 
assisted tenants.
    Sec. 212. This section reforms certain section 8 rent 
calculations as related to athletic scholarships.
    Sec. 213. This section provides allocation requirements for 
Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block 
Grant program.
    Sec. 214. This section eliminates a cap on Home Equity 
Conversion Mortgages for fiscal year 2016.
    Sec. 215. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8 
assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing.
    Sec. 216. This section clarifies the use of the 108 loan 
guaranteed program for nonentitlement communities.
    Sec. 217. This section allows public housing authorities 
with less than 400 units to be exempt from management 
requirements in the operating fund rule.
    Sec. 218. This section restricts the Secretary from 
imposing any requirement or guideline relating to asset 
management that restricts or limits the use of capital funds 
for central office costs, up to the limit established in QWHRA.
    Sec. 219. This section requires allotment holders to meet 
certain criteria of the CFO.
    Sec. 220. The section modifies the NOFA process to include 
the Internet.
    Sec. 221. This section limits attorney fees.
    Sec. 222. This section establishes reprogramming and 
reallocation requirements within HUD's salaries and expenses 
accounts.
    Sec. 223. This section allows the Disaster Housing 
Assistance Programs to be considered HUD programs for the 
purpose of income verification and matching.
    Sec. 224. This section requires HUD to take certain actions 
against owners receiving rental subsidies that do not maintain 
safe properties.
    Sec. 225. This section places limits on PHA compensation.
    Sec. 226. This section prohibits funds from being used for 
the doctoral dissertation research grant program.
    Sec. 227. This section extends the HOPE VI program until 
September 30, 2016.
    Sec. 228. This section requires the Secretary to provide 
the Committee with advance notification before discretionary 
awards are made.
    Sec. 229. This section allows the Secretary to transfer 
funding from salaries and expenses accounts to the 
``Information Technology Fund'' to support technology 
improvements.
    Sec. 230. This section prohibits funds being used to 
implement the HAWK program.
    Sec. 231. This section prohibits funds for HUD financing of 
mortgages for properties that have been subject to eminent 
domain.
    Sec. 232. This section prohibits funds from being used to 
terminate the status of a unit of local government as a 
metropolitan city, as defined under section 102 of the Housing 
and Community Development Act of 1974, with respect to grants 
under section 106 of such act.
    Sec. 233. This section makes changes to the HOME Investment 
Partnerships program.
    Sec. 234. This section prohibits funds being used to pay 
bonuses for suspended employees.
    Sec. 235. This section modifies the Rental Assistance 
Demonstration included in the fiscal year 2012 bill.
    Sec. 236. This section allows PHAs to establish replacement 
reserves to address capital needs.
    Sec. 237. This section increases the flexibility of public 
housing authorities to transfer funds between their capital and 
operating funds.
    Sec. 238. This section amends section 526 of the National 
Housing Act to permits exceptions for alternative water systems 
that meet requirements of State and local building codes that 
ensure health and safety standards.
    Sec. 239. This section expands the number of PHAs that may 
participate in the Moving-to-Work program.
    Sec. 240. This section permits triennial re-certification 
of fixed-income families.
    Sec. 241. This section extends the period of use of family 
unification vouchers by youth.
    Sec. 242. This section permits performance-based financing 
of energy and water conservation improvements in assisted 
multifamily housing to reduce utility costs.
    Sec. 243. This section incentivizes measures to reduce 
energy and water consumption in public housing.
    Sec. 244. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer 
of existing subsidies and liabilities from obsolete housing for 
persons with disabilities to housing that complies with local 
Olmstead requirements.
    Sec. 245. This section rescinds balances from various HUD 
programs.
    Sec. 246. This section permits HUD to participate in the 
multiagency Performance Partnership Pilots program.
    Sec. 247. This section permits HUD to consolidate funds 
used to implement disaster recovery grants.
    Section 248. This section prohibits HUD from requiring 
public housing agencies with less than 250 public housing units 
to conduct a Green Physical Needs Assessment.

                               TITLE III

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                              Access Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015....................................      $7,548,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................       8,023,000
House allowance.........................................       7,548,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,023,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $8,023,000 for the operations of 
the Access Board. This level of funding is $475,000 more than 
the 2015 enacted level and equal to the President's fiscal year 
2016 request.

                      Federal Maritime Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $25,660,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      27,387,000
House allowance.........................................      25,660,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,660,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $25,660,000 for the salaries and 
expenses of the FMC for fiscal year 2016. This amount is 
$1,727,000 less than the President's fiscal year 2016 budget 
request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
    The Committee commends FMC's efforts to promote access to 
foreign markets for American exports and efficient supply 
chains for the importation of goods for domestic production and 
consumption, pursuits that support economic growth and job 
creation. The Committee also supports FMC's continued efforts 
to protect consumers from potentially unlawful, unfair, or 
deceptive ocean transportation practices related to the 
movement of household goods or personal property in 
international oceanborne trade.

                National Railroad Passenger Corporation


                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015....................................     $23,999,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................      24,499,000
House allowance.........................................      24,499,000
Committee recommendation................................      23,999,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $23,999,000 for the Amtrak Office 
of Inspector General [OIG]. This funding level is $500,000 less 
than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2015 
enacted level. The Committee retains language that requires the 
Amtrak OIG to submit a budget request in similar format and 
substance to those submitted by other executive agencies in the 
Federal Government.

                  National Transportation Safety Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $103,981,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     105,170,000
House allowance.........................................     103,981,000
Committee recommendation................................     105,170,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $105,170,000 for the National 
Transportation Safety Board, which is equal to the budget 
request and $1,189,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
level. The Committee has also continued to include language 
that allows NTSB to make payments on its lease for the NTSB 
training facility with funding provided in the bill.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation


          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2015....................................    $185,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................     182,300,000
House allowance.........................................     177,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     140,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000 
for NeighborWorks for fiscal year 2016. This amount is 
$42,300,000 less than the budget request and $45,000,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Committee has 
included funding solely to support NeighborWorks core programs, 
and continues to support the set-aside of $5,000,000 for the 
multifamily rental housing initiative, which has been 
successful in developing innovative approaches to producing 
mixed-income affordable housing throughout the Nation. Funding 
for core programs is $3,400,000 more than the budget request 
and $5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
    National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program 
(NFMC).--The Committee has not included any funding for this 
program. The Committee has been clear that NFMC, initially 
provided ``one-time funding'' in fiscal year 2008, is not a 
permanent program. By not providing additional funding for 
NFMC, NeighborWorks will be able to utilize the $4,000,000 
provided in fiscal year 2015 to begin program wind down and 
close out operations.
    Mortgage Rescue Scams.--Since 2009, NeighborWorks has been 
working to raise awareness of mortgage rescue scams and help 
vulnerable homeowners access legitimate forms of assistance. 
This campaign targets at-risk communities and populations 
through public service announcements, public media, and the 
Internet. NeighborWorks is working with other partners, such as 
the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission to stop 
rescue scams. The Committee expects NeighborWorks to continue 
working with its partners to address this important issue.
    Rural Areas.--The Committee continues to support 
Neighborworks' efforts to build capacity in rural areas. The 
Committee urges the Corporation to continue these efforts.

           United States Interagency Council on Homelessness


                           OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015....................................      $3,530,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................       3,530,000
House allowance.........................................       3,530,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,530,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,530,000 for 
the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [USICH]. 
This amount is equal to the budget request and the fiscal year 
2015 enacted level. The Committee does not include changes to 
USICH's underlying authorization as included in the budget 
request.
    USICH supports Federal collaboration and implementation of 
the Federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. The 
Council's work on such issues as establishing common 
definitions of homelessness across programs and consolidating 
Federal data is helping to breakdown silos and increase Federal 
collaboration. Its work was recognized by GAO in its February 
2012 report on ways to reduce duplication, overlap, and 
fragmentation in the Federal Government. The Committee is aware 
that individuals who are homeless or in unstable housing 
situations are often living with multiple chronic conditions. 
The link between homelessness and long-term physical and 
behavioral health conditions is well documented. The Committee 
has recognized the cost-savings that can be achieved by using 
evidence-based practices, and has been supportive of such 
efforts, including through the HUD-VASH program and other 
permanent supportive housing through HUD's homeless assistance 
grants program. However, the Committee believes that more can 
be done to emphasize evidence-based practices in serving other 
populations. The Committee directs the USICH to continue to 
work to improve coordination between HUD, HHS and other Federal 
agencies, and to help communities use the Homeless Management 
Information System and other data to target affordable housing 
and homeless resources to high-need, high-cost families and 
individuals. The Committee further encourages HUD to work with 
HHS and other Federal agencies to identify homeless individuals 
who have high utilization rates for emergency and other public 
services, and share strategies for combining affordable housing 
with health and social support services to improve both housing 
and health outcomes for these individuals.
    Homeless Youth.--One of the goals of the Federal Strategic 
Plan is to prevent and end homelessness among youth by 2020. 
The plan identifies four core targeted outcomes for youth 
experiencing homelessness--stable housing, permanent 
connections, education and employment, and social/emotional 
well-being. These outcomes appropriately identify the multiple 
needs of youth experiencing homelessness and underscore the 
importance of comprehensive solutions. To be successful, it is 
critical to coordinate Federal services and programs at the 
local, regional, and State levels to ensure these outcomes are 
met.
    The Committee notes that USICH has a working group on 
ending youth homelessness and has made improving data on youth 
homelessness and building capacity for service delivery 
priorities. The Committee supports these efforts and urges 
USICH to continue to facilitate coordination among the 
appropriate agencies, including the Departments of Housing and 
Urban Development, Education, and Health and Human Services, to 
ensure the homeless services comprehensively address the needs 
of homeless youth.

                                TITLE IV

                      GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

    Section 401 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-
Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings 
funded in this act.
    Section 402 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal 
year and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so 
provided herein.
    Section 403 limits expenditures for consulting service 
through procurement contracts where such expenditures are a 
matter of public record and available for public inspection.
    Section 404 prohibits the use of funds for employee 
training unless such training bears directly upon the 
performance of official duties.
    Section 405 authorizes the reprogramming of funds within a 
budget account and specifies the reprogramming procedures for 
agencies funded by this act. The Committee rejects the 
Administration's request to transfer budget authority between 
accounts.
    Section 406 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances 
may remain available for certain purposes.
    Section 407 prohibits the use of funds for eminent domain 
unless such taking is employed for public use.
    Section 408 requires departments and agencies under this 
act to report information regarding all sole-source contracts.
    Section 409 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred 
without express authority.
    Section 410 protects employment rights of Federal employees 
who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the 
Armed Forces.
    Section 411 prohibits the use of funds for activities not 
in compliance with the Buy American Act.
    Section 412 prohibits funding for any person or entity 
convicted of violating the Buy American Act.
    Section 413 prohibits funds for first-class airline 
accommodation in contravention of section 301-10.122 and 301-
10.123 of title 41 CFR.
    Section 414 prohibits funds from being used for the 
approval of a new foreign air carrier permit or exemption 
application if that approval would contravene United States law 
or article 17 bis of the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-Norway Air Transport 
Agreement and specifies that nothing in this section shall 
prohibit, restrict, or preclude the Secretary of DOT from 
granting a permit or exemption where such authorization is 
consistent with the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-Norway Air Transport 
Treaty and the U.S. law.
    Section 415 restricts the number of employees agencies 
funded in this act may send to international conferences.

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

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on 
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment 
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.''
    The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not 
covered under this rule, but reports this information in the 
spirit of full disclosure.
    The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal 
year 2016:

                 Title I--Department of Transportation

    National Infrastructure Investments
    Federal Aviation Administration
    Federal Highway Administration
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    Federal Railroad Administration
    Federal Transit Administration
    Maritime Administration
    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
    Surface Transportation Board
    National Infrastructure Investments

         Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development

    Rental Assistance Programs
    Native American Housing Block Grants
    Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund
    Housing Opportunity for Persons with AIDS
    Community Development Fund
    Community Development Loan Guarantee
    Home Investment Partnerships Program
    Choice Neighborhoods Initiatives
    Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program
    Homeless Assistance
    Housing for the Elderly
    Housing for Persons with Disabilities
    FHA General and Special Risk Program Account:
    GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program 
Account:
    Policy Development and Research
    Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Program
    Lead Hazard Reduction Program
    Salaries and Expenses

                      Title III--Related Agencies

    Access Board
    National Transportation Safety Board
    Amtrak Office of Inspector General

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 25, 2015, 
the Committee ordered favorably reported a bill (H.R. 2577) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, 
and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, 
provided, that the bill be subject to further amendment and 
that the bill be consistent with its budget allocation, by a 
recorded vote of 20-10, a quorum being present. The vote was as 
follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Cochran                    Mr. Leahy
Mr. McConnell                       Mrs. Murray
Mr. Shelby                          Mr. Durbin
Mr. Alexander                       Mr. Reed
Ms. Collins                         Mr. Tester
Ms. Murkowski                       Mr. Udall
Mr. Graham                          Mrs. Shaheen
Mr. Kirk                            Mr. Merkley
Mr. Blunt                           Mr. Coons
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Murphy
Mr. Hoeven
Mr. Boozman
Mrs. Capito
Mr. Cassidy
Mr. Lankford
Mr. Daines
Ms. Mikulski
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Schatz
Ms. Baldwin

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

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

                      TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING


                      Chapter 13--National Housing


                      Subchapter V--Miscellaneous


Sec. 1735f-4. Minimum property standards

    (a) * * *

    (b) The Secretary may require that each property, other 
than a manufactured home, subject to a mortgage insured under 
this chapter shall, with respect to health and safety, comply 
with one of the nationally recognized model building codes, or 
with a State or local building code based on one of the 
nationally recognized model building codes or their equivalent. 
The Secretary shall be responsible for determining the 
comparability of the State and local codes to such model codes 
and for selecting for compliance purposes an appropriate 
nationally recognized model building code where no such model 
code has been duly adopted or where the Secretary determines 
the adopted code is not comparable.

    (c) The Secretary may establish an exception to any minimum 
property standard established under this section in order to 
address alternative water systems, including cisterns, which 
meet requirements of State and local building codes that ensure 
health and safety standards.

                                ------                                


                           TITLE 23--HIGHWAYS


                    Chapter 1--Federal-Aid Highways


Sec. 127. Vehicle weight limitations-Interstate System

    (a) In General.--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (l) Operation of Vehicles on Certain Kentucky Highways.--

            (1) In general.--* * *

            (2) Description of highway segments.--The highway 
        segments referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows:

                    (A) Interstate Route 69 in Kentucky 
                (formerly the Wendell H. Ford (Western 
                Kentucky) Parkway) from the Interstate Route 24 
                Interchange, near Eddyville, to the Edward T. 
                Breathitt (Pennyrile) Parkway Interchange.

                    (B) The Edward T. Breathitt (Pennyrile) 
                Parkway (to be designated as Interstate Route 
                69) in Kentucky from the Wendell H. Ford 
                (Western Kentucky) Parkway Interchange to near 
                milepost 77, and on new alignment to an 
                interchange on the Audubon Parkway, if the 
                segment is designated as part of the Interstate 
                System.

    (m) Operation of Certain Specialized Hauling Vehicles on 
Certain Texas Highways.--

            (1) In general.--If any segment of United States 
        Route 59, United States Route 77, United States Route 
        281, United States Route 84, or routes otherwise made 
        eligible for designation as Interstate Route 69, is 
        designated as Interstate Route 69, a vehicle that could 
        operate legally on that segment before the date of such 
        designation may continue to operate on that segment, 
        without regard to any requirement under subsection (a).

            (2) Description of highway segments.--The highway 
        segments referred to in paragraph (1) are any segment 
        of United States Route 59, United States Route 77, 
        United States Route 281, United States Route 84, and 
        routes otherwise made eligible for designation as 
        Interstate Route 69 in Texas.

    (n) Operation of Certain Specialized Vehicles on Certain 
Highways in the State of Arkansas.--If any segment of United 
States Route 63 between the exits for Arkansas Highway 14 and 
Arkansas Highway 75 is designated as part of the Interstate 
System--

            (1) a vehicle that could legally operate on the 
        segment before the date of such designation at the 
        posted speed limit may continue to operate on that 
        segment; and

            (2) a vehicle that can only travel slower than the 
        posted speed limit on the segment and could otherwise 
        legally operate on the segment before the date of such 
        designation may continue to operate on that segment 
        during daylight hours.
                                ------                                


                TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE


                     Chapter 8--Low-Income Housing


           Subchapter I--General Program and Assisted Housing


Sec. 1437a. Rental payments

(a) Families included; rent options; minimum amount; occupancy 
            by police officers and over-income families

            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (5) Occupancy by over-income families in certain 
        public housing.--

                    (A) Authority.--* * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (C) Definition.--For purposes of this 
                paragraph, the term ``over-income family'' 
                means an individual or family that is not a 
                low-income family at the time of initial 
                occupancy.

            (6) Reviews of family income.--

                    (A) Frequency.--Reviews of family income 
                for purposes of this section shall be made--

                            (i) in the case of all families, 
                        upon the initial provision of housing 
                        assistance16 for the family; and

                            (ii) no less than annually 
                        thereafter, except as provided in 
                        subparagraph (B)(i);

                    (B) Fixed-income families.--

                            (i) Self certification and 3-year 
                        review.--In the case of any family 
                        described in clause (ii), after the 
                        initial review of the family's income 
                        pursuant to subparagraph (A)(i), the 
                        public housing agency or owner shall 
                        not be required to conduct a review of 
                        the family's income pursuant to 
                        subparagraph (A)(ii) for any year for 
                        which such family certifies, in 
                        accordance with such requirements as 
                        the Secretary shall establish, that the 
                        income of the family meets the 
                        requirements of clause (ii) of this 
                        subparagraph and that the sources of 
                        such income have not changed since the 
                        previous year, except that the public 
                        housing agency or owner shall conduct a 
                        review of each such family's income not 
                        less than once every 3 years.

                            (ii) Eligible families.--A family 
                        described in this clause is a family 
                        who has an income, as of the most 
                        recent review pursuant to subparagraph 
                        (A) or clause (i) of this subparagraph, 
                        of which 90 percent or more consists of 
                        fixed income, as such term is defined 
                        in clause (iii).

                            (iii) Fixed income.--For purposes 
                        of this subparagraph, the term ``fixed 
                        income'' includes income from--

                                    (I) the supplemental 
                                security income program under 
                                title XVI of the Social 
                                Security Act, including 
                                supplementary payments pursuant 
                                to an agreement for Federal 
                                administration under section 
                                1616(a) of the Social Security 
                                Act and payments pursuant to an 
                                agreement entered into under 
                                section 212(b) of Public Law 
                                93-66;

                                    (II) Social Security 
                                payments;

                                    (III) Federal, State, local 
                                and private pension plans; and

                                    (IV) other periodic 
                                payments received from 
                                annuities, insurance policies, 
                                retirement funds, disability or 
                                death benefits, and other 
                                similar types of periodic 
                                receipts that are of 
                                substantially the same amounts 
                                from year to year.

                    (C) Inflationary adjustment for fixed 
                income families.--

                            (i) In general.--In any year in 
                        which a public housing agency or owner 
                        does not conduct a review of income for 
                        any family described in clause (ii) of 
                        subparagraph (B) pursuant to the 
                        authority under clause (i) of such 
                        paragraph to waive such a review, such 
                        family's prior year's income 
                        determination shall, subject to clauses 
                        (ii) and (iii), be adjusted by applying 
                        an inflationary factor as the Secretary 
                        shall, by regulation or notice, 
                        establish.

                            (ii) Exemption from adjustment.--A 
                        public housing agency or owner may 
                        exempt from an adjustment pursuant to 
                        clause (i) any income source for which 
                        income does not increase from year to 
                        year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1437f. Low-income housing assistance

(a) Authorization for assistance payments

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(x) Family unification

  (1) Increase in budget authority

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (2) Use of funds

    The amounts made available under this subsection shall be 
used only in connection with tenant-based assistance under this 
section on behalf of (A) any family (i) who is otherwise 
eligible for such assistance, and (ii) who the public child 
welfare agency for the jurisdiction has certified is a family 
for whom the lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in 
the imminent placement of the family's child or children in 
out-of-home care or the delayed discharge of a child or 
children to the family from out-of-home care and (B) for a 
period not to exceed [18 months] 36 months, otherwise eligible 
youths who have attained at least 18 years of age and not more 
than 21 years of age and who have left foster care at age 16 or 
older.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1437g. Public housing Capital and Operating Funds

(a) Merger into Capital Fund

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(g) Limitations on use of funds

  (1) Flexibility for Capital Fund amounts

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

    (B) Flexibility for operating fund amounts.--Of any amounts 
appropriated for fiscal year 2016 or any fiscal year thereafter 
that are allocated for fiscal year 2016 or any fiscal year 
thereafter from the Operating Fund for any public housing 
agency, the agency may use not more than 20 percent for 
activities that are eligible under subsection (d) for 
assistance with amounts from the Capital Fund, but only if the 
public housing plan for the agency provides for such use.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(j) Penalty for slow expenditure of capital funds

  (1) Obligation of amounts

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (6) Right of recapture

    Any obligation entered into by a public housing agency 
shall be subject to the right of the Secretary to recapture the 
obligated amounts for violation by the public housing agency of 
the requirements of this subsection.

    (7) Treatment of replacement reserve.--The requirements of 
this subsection shall not apply to funds held in replacement 
reserves established in subsection (9)(n).



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

  (1) [Repealed. Pub. L. 108-7, div. K, title II, Sec. 212(a), 
Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 503].

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) Effective date

    This subsection shall apply to fiscal year 1999 and each 
fiscal year thereafter.

    (n) Establishment of Replacement Reserves.--

            (1) In general.--Public Housing authorities shall 
        be permitted to establish a Replacement Reserve to fund 
        any of the capital activities listed in subparagraph 
        (d)(1).

            (2) Source and amount of funds for replacement 
        reserve.--At any time, a public housing authority may 
        deposit funds from that agency's Capital Fund into a 
        replacement reserve subject to the following:

                    (A) At the discretion of the Secretary, 
                public housing agencies may transfer and hold 
                in a Replacement Reserve, funds originating 
                from additional sources.

                    (B) No minimum transfer of funds to a 
                replacement reserve shall be required.

                    (C) At any time, a public housing authority 
                may not hold in a replacement reserve more than 
                the amount the public housing authority has 
                determined necessary to satisfy the anticipated 
                capital needs of properties in its portfolio 
                assisted under 42 U.S.C. 1437g as outlined in 
                its Capital Fund 5 Year Action Plan, or a 
                comparable plan, as determined by the 
                Secretary.

                    (D) The Secretary may establish by 
                regulation a maximum replacement reserve level 
                or levels that are below amounts determined 
                under subparagraph (C), which may be based upon 
                the size of the portfolio assisted under 42 
                U.S.C. 1437g or other factors.

            (3) In first establishing a replacement reserve, 
        the Secretary may allow public housing agencies to 
        transfer more than 20 percent of its operating funds 
        into its replacement reserve.

            (4) Expenditure.--Funds in a replacement reserve 
        may be used for purposes authorized by subparagraph 
        (d)(1) and contained in its Capital Fund 5 Year Action 
        Plan.

            (5) Management and report.--The Secretary shall 
        establish appropriate accounting and reporting 
        requirements to ensure that public housing agencies are 
        spending funds on eligible projects and that funds in 
        the replacement reserve are connected to capital needs.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

(a) Purposes

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(m) Funding

  (1) Authorization of appropriations

    There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under 
this section $574,000,000 for [fiscal year 2015.] fiscal year 
2016.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(o) Sunset

    No assistance may be provided under this section after 
[September 30, 2015.] September 30, 2016.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    Chapter 119--Homeless Assistance


    Subchapter II--United States Interagency Council on Homelessness


Sec. 11314. Director and Staff

(a) Director

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                Chapter 130--National Affordable Housing


            Subchapter II--Investment in Affordable Housing


                  Part A--HOME Investment Partnerships


Sec. 12755. Tenant and participant protections

(a) Lease

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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


                        TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION


                 SUBTITLE IV--INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION


Part B--Motor Carriers, Water Carriers, Brokers, and Freight Forwarders


                       Chapter 135--Jurisdiction


               Subchapter I--Motor Carrier Transportation


Sec. 13506. Miscellaneous motor carrier transportation exemptions

    (a) In General.--* * *

            (1) a motor vehicle transporting only school 
        children and teachers to or from school;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (14) brokers for motor carriers of passengers, 
        except as provided in section 13904(d); [or]

            (15) transportation of broken, crushed, or powdered 
        glass[.] ; or
            (16) the transportation of passengers by motor 
        vehicles operated by youth or family camps that provide 
        overnight accommodations and recreational or 
        educational activities at fixed locations.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             SUBTITLE VI--MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS


                           Part B--Commercial


              Chapter 311--Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety


              Subchapter II--Length and Width Limitations


Sec. 31111. Length limitations

    (a) Definitions.--* * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) General Limitations.--(1) Except as provided in this 
section, a State may not prescribe or enforce a regulation of 
commerce that--
            (A) imposes a vehicle length limitation of less 
        than 45 feet on a bus, of less than 48 feet on a 
        semitrailer operating in a truck tractor-semitrailer 
        combination, [or of less than 28 feet on a semitrailer 
        or trailer operating in a truck tractor-semitrailer-
        trailer combination,] or, notwithstanding section 
        31112, of less than 33 feet on a semitrailer or trailer 
        operating in a truck tractor semitrailer-trailer 
        combination, on any segment of the Dwight D. Eisenhower 
        System of Interstate and Defense Highways (except a 
        segment exempted under subsection (f) of this section) 
        and those classes of qualifying Federal-aid Primary 
        System highways designated by the Secretary of 
        Transportation under subsection (e) of this section;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 31112. Property-carrying unit limitation

    (a) Definitions.--* * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) [Special Rules for Wyoming, Ohio, Alaska, Iowa, and 
Nebraska] Special Rules for Wyoming, Ohio, Alaska, Iowa, 
Nebraska, and Kansas.--* * *

            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Alaska may allow the operation of commercial 
        motor vehicle combinations that were not in actual 
        operation on June 1, 1991, but were in actual operation 
        before July 6, 1991[; and] ;

            (4) Iowa may allow the operation on Interstate 
        Route 29 between Sioux City, Iowa, and the border 
        between Iowa and South Dakota or on Interstate Route 
        129 between Sioux City, Iowa, and the border between 
        Iowa and Nebraska of commercial motor vehicle 
        combinations with trailer length, semitrailer length, 
        and property-carrying unit length allowed by law or 
        regulation and in actual lawful operation on a regular 
        or periodic basis (including continued seasonal 
        operation) in South Dakota or Nebraska, respectively, 
        before June 2, 1991[.] ; and

            (5) [Nebraska may] Nebraska and Kansas may allow 
        the operation of a truck tractor and 2 trailers or 
        semitrailers not in actual lawful operation on a 
        regular or periodic basis on June 1, 1991, if the 
        length of the property-carrying units does not exceed 
        81 feet 6 inches and such combination is used only to 
        transport equipment utilized by custom harvesters under 
        contract to agricultural producers to harvest one or 
        more of wheat, soybeans, and milo during the harvest 
        months for such crops, as defined by [the State of 
        Nebraska] the relevant state.
                                ------                                


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


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


                                TITLE II


              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT


                    Rental Assistance Demonstration

    To conduct a demonstration designed to preserve and improve 
public housing and certain other multifamily housing through 
the voluntary conversion of properties with assistance under 
section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 
(hereinafter, ``the Act''), or the moderate rehabilitation 
program under section 8(e)(2) of the Act, to properties with 
assistance under a project-based subsidy contract under section 
8 of the Act, which shall be eligible for renewal under section 
524 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and 
Affordability Act of 1997, or assistance under section 8(o)(13) 
of the Act, the Secretary may transfer amounts provided through 
contracts under section 8(e)(2) of the Act or under the 
headings ``Public Housing Capital Fund'' and ``Public Housing 
Operating Fund'' to the headings ``Tenant-Based Rental 
Assistance'' or ``Project-Based Rental Assistance'': Provided, 
That the initial long-term contract under which converted 
assistance is made available may allow for rental adjustments 
only by an operating cost factor established by the Secretary, 
and shall be subject to the availability of appropriations for 
each year of such term: Provided further, That project 
applications may be received under this demonstration until 
September 30, 2018: Provided further, That any increase in cost 
for ``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'' or ``Project-Based 
Rental Assistance'' associated with such conversion in excess 
of amounts made available under this heading shall be equal to 
amounts transferred from ``Public Housing Capital Fund'' and 
``Public Housing Operating Fund'' or other account from which 
it was transferred: Provided further, That not more than 
[185,000] 200,000 units currently receiving assistance under 
section 9 or section 8(e)(2) of the Act shall be converted 
under the authority provided under this heading: Provided 
further, That tenants of such properties with assistance 
converted from assistance under section 9 shall, at a minimum, 
maintain the same rights under such conversion as those 
provided under sections 6 and 9 of the Act: Provided further, 
That the Secretary shall select properties from applications 
for conversion as part of this demonstration through a 
competitive process: Provided further, That in establishing 
criteria for such competition, the Secretary shall seek to 
demonstrate the feasibility of this conversion model to 
recapitalize and operate public housing properties (1) in 
different markets and geographic areas, (2) within portfolios 
managed by public housing agencies of varying sizes, and (3) by 
leveraging other sources of funding to recapitalize properties: 
Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide an 
opportunity for public comment on draft eligibility and 
selection criteria and procedures that will apply to the 
selection of properties that will participate in the 
demonstration: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
provide an opportunity for comment from residents of properties 
to be proposed for participation in the demonstration to the 
owners or public housing agencies responsible for such 
properties: Provided further, That the Secretary may waive or 
specify alternative requirements for (except for requirements 
related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, 
and the environment) any provision of section 8(o)(13) or any 
provision that governs the use of assistance from which a 
property is converted under the demonstration or funds made 
available under the headings of ``Public Housing Capital 
Fund'', ``Public Housing Operating Fund'', and ``Project-Based 
Rental Assistance'', under this Act or any prior Act or any Act 
enacted during the period of conversion of assistance under the 
demonstration for properties with assistance converted under 
the demonstration, upon a finding by the Secretary that any 
such waivers or alternative requirements are necessary for the 
effective conversion of assistance under the demonstration: 
Provided further, That the Secretary shall publish by notice in 
the Federal Register any waivers or alternative requirements 
pursuant to the previous proviso no later than 10 days before 
the effective date of such notice: Provided further, That the 
demonstration may proceed after the Secretary publishes notice 
of its terms in the Federal Register: Provided further, That 
notwithstanding sections 3 and 16 of the Act, the conversion of 
assistance under the demonstration shall not be the basis for 
re-screening or termination of assistance or eviction of any 
tenant family in a property participating in the demonstration, 
and such a family shall not be considered a new admission for 
any purpose, including compliance with income targeting 
requirements: Provided further, That in the case of a property 
with assistance converted under the demonstration from 
assistance under section 9 of the Act, section 18 of the Act 
shall not apply to a property converting assistance under the 
demonstration for all or substantially all of its units, the 
Secretary shall require ownership or control of assisted units 
by a public or nonprofit entity except as determined by the 
Secretary to be necessary pursuant to foreclosure, bankruptcy, 
or termination and transfer of assistance for material 
violations or substantial default, in which case the priority 
for ownership or control shall be provided to a capable public 
entity, then a capable entity, as determined by the Secretary, 
shall require long-term renewable use and affordability 
restrictions for assisted units, and may allow ownership to be 
transferred to a for-profit entity to facilitate the use of tax 
credits only if the public housing agency preserves its 
interest in the property in a manner approved by the Secretary, 
and upon expiration of the initial contract and each renewal 
contract, the Secretary shall offer and the owner of the 
property shall accept renewal of the contract subject to the 
terms and conditions applicable at the time of renewal and the 
availability of appropriations each year of such renewal: 
Provided further, That the Secretary may permit transfer of 
assistance at or after conversion under the demonstration to 
replacement units subject to the requirements in the previous 
proviso: Provided further, That the Secretary may establish the 
requirements for converted assistance under the demonstration 
through contracts, use agreements, regulations, or other means: 
Provided further, That the Secretary shall assess and publish 
findings regarding the impact of the conversion of assistance 
under the demonstration on the preservation and improvement of 
public housing, the amount of private sector leveraging as a 
result of such conversion, and the effect of such conversion on 
tenants: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2012 and 
hereafter, owners of properties assisted under section 101 of 
the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, section 
236(f)(2) of the National Housing Act, or section 8(e)(2) of 
the United States Housing Act of 1937, for which an event after 
October 1, 2006 has caused or results in the termination of 
rental assistance or affordability restrictions and the 
issuance of tenant protection vouchers under section 8(o) of 
the Act, shall be eligible, subject to requirements established 
by the Secretary, including but not limited to tenant 
consultation procedures, for conversion of assistance available 
for such vouchers to assistance under a long-term project-based 
subsidy contract under section 8 of the Act, which shall have a 
term of no less than 20 years, with rent adjustments only by an 
operating cost factor established by the Secretary, which shall 
be eligible for renewal under section 524 of the Multifamily 
Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 
U.S.C. 1437f note), or, subject to agreement of the 
administering public housing agency, to assistance under 
section 8(o)(13) of the Act, to which the limitation under 
subsection (B) of section 8(o)(13) of the Act shall not apply 
and for which the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
may waive or alter the provisions of subparagraphs (C) and (D) 
of section 8(o)(13) of the Act: Provided further, That amounts 
made available under the heading ``Rental Housing Assistance'' 
during the period of conversion under the previous proviso[, 
which may extend beyond fiscal year 2016 as necessary to allow 
processing of all timely applications,] shall be available for 
project-based subsidy contracts entered into pursuant to the 
previous proviso: Provided further, That amounts, including 
contract authority, recaptured from contracts following a 
conversion under the previous two provisos are hereby rescinded 
and an amount of additional new budget authority, equivalent to 
the amount rescinded is hereby appropriated, to remain 
available until expended for such conversions: Provided 
further, That the Secretary may transfer amounts made available 
under the heading ``Rental Housing Assistance'', amounts made 
available for tenant protection vouchers under the heading 
``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'' and specifically associated 
with any such conversions, and amounts made available under the 
previous proviso as needed to the account under the ``Project-
Based Rental Assistance'' heading to facilitate conversion 
under the three previous provisos and any increase in cost for 
``Project-Based Rental Assistance'' associated with such 
conversion shall be equal to amounts so transferred: Provided 
further, That with respect to the previous four provisos, the 
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study 
of the long-term impact of the fiscal year 2012 and 2013 
conversion of tenant protection vouchers to assistance under 
section 8(o)(13) of the Act on the ratio of tenant-based 
vouchers to project-based vouchers.
                                ------                                


                        BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL


  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Budget authority                 Outlays
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee    Amount  in     Committee    Amount  in
                                                           allocation       bill       allocation       bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with the subcommittee
 allocation for 2016: Subcommittee on Transportation and
 Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies:
    Mandatory...........................................  ............  ............  ............  ............
    Discretionary.......................................       55,646        55,646       119,707    \1\119,698
        Security........................................          186           186            NA            Na
        Nonsecurity.....................................       55,460        55,460            NA            NA
    Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on         ............  ............  ............  ............
     Terrorism..........................................
Projections of outlays associated with the
 recommendation:
    2016................................................  ............  ............  ............    \2\41,542
    2017................................................  ............  ............  ............       35,170
    2018................................................  ............  ............  ............       13,917
    2019................................................  ............  ............  ............        5,793
    2020 and future years...............................  ............  ............  ............        7,150
Financial assistance to State and local governments forP           NA        31,206            NA     \2\30,887
 2016...................................................
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.


                 COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
                                                                                    [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or
                                                                                                                                                                      )
                               Item                                       2015         Budget estimate   House allowance      Committee    -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                      appropriation                                        recommendation         2015
                                                                                                                                              appropriation    Budget estimate   House allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
 
                      Office of the Secretary
 
Salaries and expenses.............................................          105,000           113,657            93,500           110,738            +5,738            -2,919           +17,238
    Immediate Office of the Secretary.............................           (2,696)  ................           (2,734)           (2,734)             (+38)          (+2,734)  ................
    Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary......................           (1,011)  ................           (1,025)           (1,025)             (+14)          (+1,025)  ................
    Office of the General Counsel.................................          (19,900)  ................          (18,066)          (20,109)            (+209)         (+20,109)          (+2,043)
    Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy....           (9,800)  ................           (7,810)          (10,141)            (+341)         (+10,141)          (+2,331)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.....          (12,500)  ................           (7,808)          (13,867)          (+1,367)         (+13,867)          (+6,059)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs....           (2,500)  ................           (2,250)           (2,546)             (+46)          (+2,546)            (+296)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration..........          (25,365)  ................          (23,529)          (27,411)          (+2,046)         (+27,411)          (+3,882)
    Office of Public Affairs......................................           (2,000)  ................           (2,029)           (2,029)             (+29)          (+2,029)  ................
    Office of the Executive Secretariat...........................           (1,714)  ................           (1,519)           (1,769)             (+55)          (+1,769)            (+250)
    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization........           (1,414)  ................  ................           (1,434)             (+20)          (+1,434)          (+1,434)
    Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response......          (10,600)  ................          (10,793)          (10,793)            (+193)         (+10,793)  ................
    Office of the Chief Information Officer.......................          (15,500)  ................          (15,937)          (16,880)          (+1,380)         (+16,880)            (+943)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Innovative Finance......  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Research and technology...........................................           13,000            14,582            11,386            13,000   ................           -1,582            +1,614
National infrastructure investments...............................          500,000   ................          100,000           500,000   ................         +500,000          +400,000
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).......................  ................       (1,250,000)  ................  ................  ................      (-1,250,000)  ................
    (Limitation on obligations)...................................  ................       (1,250,000)  ................  ................  ................      (-1,250,000)  ................
Infrastructure permitting center..................................  ................            4,000   ................            4,000            +4,000   ................           +4,000
Financial management capital......................................            5,000             5,000             1,000             5,000   ................  ................           +4,000
Cyber security initiatives........................................            5,000             8,000             7,000             8,000            +3,000   ................           +1,000
DATA Act compliance...............................................  ................            3,000   ................  ................  ................           -3,000   ................
U.S. digital services.............................................  ................            9,000   ................  ................  ................           -9,000   ................
Office of Civil Rights............................................            9,600             9,678             9,600             9,678               +78   ................              +78
Transportation planning, research, and development................            6,000            10,019             5,976             6,000   ................           -4,019               +24
Working Capital Fund..............................................         (181,500)  ................         (181,500)         (190,039)          (+8,539)        (+190,039)          (+8,539)
Minority Business Resource Center Program.........................              925               933               933               933                +8   ................  ................
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..............................          (18,367)  ................          (18,367)          (18,367)  ................         (+18,367)  ................
Small and disadvantaged business utilizaton and outreach (Minority            3,099             4,518             4,518             3,084               -15            -1,434            -1,434
 business outreach)...............................................
Safe transport of oil.............................................  ................            5,000   ................  ................  ................           -5,000   ................
Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)............          155,000           175,000           155,000           175,000           +20,000   ................          +20,000
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of the Secretary..............................          802,624           362,387           388,913           835,433           +32,809          +473,046          +446,520
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                  Federal Aviation Administration
 
Operations........................................................        9,740,700         9,915,000         9,844,700         9,897,818          +157,118           -17,182           +53,118
    Air traffic organization......................................       (7,396,654)       (7,505,293)       (7,505,293)       (7,505,293)        (+108,639)  ................  ................
    Aviation safety...............................................       (1,218,458)       (1,258,411)       (1,258,411)       (1,258,411)         (+39,953)  ................  ................
    Commercial space transportation...............................          (16,605)          (18,114)          (16,855)          (17,425)            (+820)            (-689)            (+570)
    Finance and management........................................         (756,047)         (764,969)         (721,750)         (748,969)          (-7,078)         (-16,000)         (+27,219)
    NextGen.......................................................          (60,089)          (60,582)          (60,089)          (60,089)  ................            (-493)  ................
    Staff offices.................................................         (292,847)         (206,751)         (282,302)         (206,751)         (-86,096)  ................         (-75,551)
    Security and hazardous materials safety.......................  ................         (100,880)  ................         (100,880)        (+100,880)  ................        (+100,880)
Facilities and equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)............        2,600,000         2,855,000         2,503,000         2,600,000   ................         -255,000           +97,000
Research, engineering, and development (Airport & Airway Trust              156,750           166,000           156,750           163,325            +6,575            -2,675            +6,575
 Fund.............................................................
Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust                     (3,200,000)       (3,500,000)       (3,600,000)       (3,600,000)        (+400,000)        (+100,000)  ................
 Fund)(Liquidation of contract authorization).....................
    (Limitation on obligations)...................................       (3,350,000)       (2,900,000)       (3,350,000)       (3,350,000)  ................        (+450,000)  ................
        Administration............................................         (107,100)         (107,100)         (107,100)         (107,100)  ................  ................  ................
        Airport cooperative research program......................          (15,000)          (15,000)          (15,000)          (15,000)  ................  ................  ................
        Airport technology research...............................          (29,750)          (31,000)          (31,000)          (31,000)          (+1,250)  ................  ................
        Small community air service development program...........           (5,500)  ................  ................          (10,000)          (+4,500)         (+10,000)         (+10,000)
    Rescission of contract authority..............................         -260,000   ................  ................  ................         +260,000   ................  ................
    Pop-up contract authority.....................................          130,000   ................  ................  ................         -130,000   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Aviation Administration......................       12,367,450        12,936,000        12,504,450        12,661,143          +293,693          -274,857          +156,693
 
          Limitations on obligations..............................       (3,350,000)       (2,900,000)       (3,350,000)       (3,350,000)  ................        (+450,000)  ................
            Total budgetary resources.............................      (15,717,450)      (15,836,000)      (15,854,450)      (16,011,143)        (+293,693)        (+175,143)        (+156,693)
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                  Federal Highway Administration
 
Limitation on administrative expenses.............................         (426,100)         (442,248)         (429,348)         (429,348)          (+3,248)         (-12,900)  ................
 
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).......................      (40,995,000)      (50,807,248)      (40,995,000)      (40,995,000)  ................      (-9,812,248)  ................
    (Limitation on obligations)...................................      (40,256,000)      (50,068,248)      (40,256,000)      (40,256,000)  ................      (-9,812,248)  ................
    Fixing and accelerating surface transportation (Liquidation of  ................         (500,000)  ................  ................  ................        (-500,000)  ................
     contract authorization)......................................
        (Limitation on obligations)...............................  ................         (500,000)  ................  ................  ................        (-500,000)  ................
    (Exempt contract authority)...................................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................  ................
    Repurposing unused highway funding (Sec. 126).................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Highway Administration.......................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
 
          Limitations on obligations..............................      (40,256,000)      (50,568,248)      (40,256,000)      (40,256,000)  ................     (-10,312,248)  ................
          Exempt contract authority...............................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................  ................
            Total budgetary resources.............................      (40,995,000)      (51,307,248)      (40,995,000)      (40,995,000)  ................     (-10,312,248)  ................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
            Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
 
Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust                (271,000)         (329,180)         (259,000)         (259,000)         (-12,000)         (-70,180)  ................
 Fund)(Liquidation of contract authorization).....................
    (Limitation on obligations)...................................         (271,000)         (329,180)         (259,000)         (259,000)         (-12,000)         (-70,180)  ................
Motor carrier safety srants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of           (313,000)         (339,343)         (313,000)         (313,000)  ................         (-26,343)  ................
 contract authorization)..........................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...................................         (313,000)         (339,343)         (313,000)         (313,000)  ................         (-26,343)  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration..........  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
 
          Limitations on obligations..............................         (584,000)         (668,523)         (572,000)         (572,000)         (-12,000)         (-96,523)  ................
            Total budgetary resources.............................         (584,000)         (668,523)         (572,000)         (572,000)         (-12,000)         (-96,523)  ................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
 
Operations and research (general fund)............................          130,000   ................          152,800           130,500              +500          +130,500           -22,300
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).......................  ................         (179,000)  ................  ................  ................        (-179,000)  ................
    (Limitation on obligations)...................................  ................         (179,000)  ................  ................  ................        (-179,000)  ................
 
           Operations and Research (Highway Trust Fund)
 
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).......................         (138,500)         (152,000)         (125,000)         (118,500)         (-20,000)         (-33,500)          (-6,500)
    (Limitation on obligations)...................................         (138,500)         (152,000)         (125,000)         (118,500)         (-20,000)         (-33,500)          (-6,500)
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operations and Research...........................          268,500           331,000           277,800           249,000           -19,500           -82,000           -28,800
 
Highway Traffic Safety Grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of         (561,500)         (577,000)         (561,500)         (575,500)         (+14,000)          (-1,500)         (+14,000)
 contract authorization)..........................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...................................         (561,500)         (577,000)         (561,500)         (575,500)         (+14,000)          (-1,500)         (+14,000)
        Highway safety programs (23 USC 402)......................         (235,000)         (241,146)         (235,000)         (235,000)  ................          (-6,146)  ................
        National priority safety programs (23 USC 405)............         (272,000)         (278,705)         (272,000)         (272,000)  ................          (-6,705)  ................
        High visibility enforcement...............................          (29,000)          (29,000)          (29,000)          (29,000)  ................  ................  ................
        Administrative expenses...................................          (25,500)          (28,149)          (25,500)          (25,500)  ................          (-2,649)  ................
        Repurposed for vehicle safety.............................  ................  ................  ................           (4,000)          (+4,000)          (+4,000)          (+4,000)
        Repurposed for highway saftey research and development....  ................  ................  ................          (10,000)         (+10,000)         (+10,000)         (+10,000)
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...          130,000   ................          152,800           130,500              +500          +130,500           -22,300
            Limitations on obligations............................         (700,000)         (908,000)         (686,500)         (694,000)          (-6,000)        (-214,000)          (+7,500)
            Total budgetary resources.............................         (830,000)         (908,000)         (839,300)         (824,500)          (-5,500)         (-83,500)         (-14,800)
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                  Federal Railroad Administration
 
Safety and operations.............................................          186,870           203,800           190,370           199,000           +12,130            -4,800            +8,630
Railroad research and development.................................           39,100            39,250            39,100            39,100   ................             -150   ................
Railroad safety grants............................................  ................  ................  ................           50,000           +50,000           +50,000           +50,000
Rail service improvement program..................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
      (Liquidation of contract authorization).....................  ................       (2,325,000)  ................  ................  ................      (-2,325,000)  ................
        (Limitation on obligations)...............................  ................       (2,325,000)  ................  ................  ................      (-2,325,000)  ................
 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation:
    Operating grants to the National Railroad Passenger                     250,000   ................          288,500           288,500           +38,500          +288,500   ................
     Corporation..................................................
    Capital and debt service grants to the National Railroad              1,140,000   ................          859,000         1,101,500           -38,500        +1,101,500          +242,500
     Passenger Corporation........................................
    Current rail passenger service................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................  ................       (2,450,000)  ................  ................  ................      (-2,450,000)  ................
            (Limitation on obligations)...........................  ................       (2,450,000)  ................  ................  ................      (-2,450,000)  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal............................................        1,390,000   ................        1,147,500         1,390,000   ................       +1,390,000          +242,500
 
                     Administrative Provisions
 
Rail safety grants................................................           10,000   ................  ................  ................          -10,000   ................  ................
Rail unobligated balances (rescission) (Sec. 152).................  ................  ................  ................           -4,201            -4,201            -4,201            -4,201
RRIF application expenses (Sec. 152)..............................  ................  ................  ................            4,201            +4,201            +4,201            +4,201
Rail unobligated balances (rescission) (Sec. 153).................  ................  ................  ................          -16,922           -16,922           -16,922           -16,922
Northeast Corridor Capital grants (Sec. 153)......................  ................  ................  ................           16,922           +16,922           +16,922           +16,922
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Administrative Provisions............................           10,000   ................  ................  ................          -10,000   ................  ................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
      Total, Federal Railroad Administration......................        1,625,970           243,050         1,376,970         1,678,100           +52,130        +1,435,050          +301,130
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                  Federal Transit Administration
 
Administrative expenses...........................................          105,933   ................           97,933           107,000            +1,067          +107,000            +9,067
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).......................  ................         (114,400)  ................  ................  ................        (-114,400)  ................
    (Limitation on obligations)...................................  ................         (114,400)  ................  ................  ................        (-114,400)  ................
 
Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program:
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).......................  ................          (25,000)  ................  ................  ................         (-25,000)  ................
    (Limitation on obligations)...................................  ................          (25,000)  ................  ................  ................         (-25,000)  ................
Transit Formula Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account             (9,500,000)      (13,800,000)       (9,500,000)       (9,500,000)  ................      (-4,300,000)  ................
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)..........................
    (Limitation on obligations)...................................       (8,595,000)      (13,800,000)       (8,595,000)       (8,595,000)  ................      (-5,205,000)  ................
Fixing and acceleration surface transportation (Liquidation of      ................         (500,000)  ................  ................  ................        (-500,000)  ................
 contract authorization)..........................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...................................  ................         (500,000)  ................  ................  ................        (-500,000)  ................
Transit research..................................................           33,000   ................           26,000            32,500              -500           +32,500            +6,500
Technical assistance and training.................................            4,500   ................            5,000             3,153            -1,347            +3,153            -1,847
 
Transit Research and Training:
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).......................  ................          (60,000)  ................  ................  ................         (-60,000)  ................
    (Limitation on obligations)...................................  ................          (60,000)  ................  ................  ................         (-60,000)  ................
Rapid-Growth Area Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Program (Liquidation   ................         (500,000)  ................  ................  ................        (-500,000)  ................
 of contract authorization).......................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...................................  ................         (500,000)  ................  ................  ................        (-500,000)  ................
Capital investment grants.........................................        2,120,000   ................        1,921,395         1,585,000          -535,000        +1,585,000          -336,395
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).......................  ................       (3,250,000)  ................  ................  ................      (-3,250,000)  ................
    (Limitation on obligations)...................................  ................       (3,250,000)  ................  ................  ................      (-3,250,000)  ................
    Rescission....................................................         -121,546   ................  ................          -10,000          +111,546           -10,000           -10,000
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority capital and                  150,000           150,000           100,000           150,000   ................  ................          +50,000
 preventive maintenance...........................................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Transit Administration.......................        2,291,887           150,000         2,150,328         1,867,653          -424,234        +1,717,653          -282,675
 
          Limitations on obligations..............................       (8,595,000)      (18,249,400)       (8,595,000)       (8,595,000)  ................      (-9,654,400)  ................
            Total budgetary resources.............................      (10,886,887)      (18,399,400)      (10,745,328)      (10,462,653)        (-424,234)      (-7,936,747)        (-282,675)
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
           Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
 
Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)........           32,042            36,400            29,042            28,400            -3,642            -8,000              -642
 
                      Maritime Administration
 
Maritime Security Program.........................................          186,000           211,000           186,000           186,000   ................          -25,000   ................
Operations and training...........................................          148,050           184,637           164,158           170,000           +21,950           -14,637            +5,842
Ship disposal.....................................................            4,000             8,000             4,000             4,000   ................           -4,000   ................
Assistance to small shipyards.....................................  ................  ................  ................            5,000            +5,000            +5,000            +5,000
 
Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account:
    Administrative expenses.......................................            3,100             3,135             3,135             3,135               +35   ................  ................
    Guaranteed loans subsidy......................................  ................  ................  ................            5,000            +5,000            +5,000            +5,000
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Maritime Administration..............................          341,150           406,772           357,293           373,135           +31,985           -33,637           +15,842
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
      Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
 
Operational expenses:
    General fund..................................................           22,225            22,500            21,225            22,500              +275   ................           +1,275
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal....................................................           22,225            22,500            21,225            22,500              +275   ................           +1,275
 
Hazardous materials safety:
    General fund..................................................           52,000            64,254            60,500            49,000            -3,000           -15,254           -11,500
    Special permit and approval fees..............................  ................           -6,000   ................  ................  ................           +6,000   ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal....................................................           52,000            58,254            60,500            49,000            -3,000            -9,254           -11,500
 
Pipeline Safety:
    General Fund..................................................  ................            1,500             1,870   ................  ................           -1,500            -1,870
    Pipeline Safety Fund..........................................          124,500           152,104           124,500           127,123            +2,623           -24,981            +2,623
    Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund................................           19,500            19,500            19,500            19,500   ................  ................  ................
    Pipeline Safety Design Review Fund............................            2,000             2,000   ................  ................           -2,000            -2,000   ................
    Pipeline safety information grants (by transfer)..............           (1,500)           (1,500)  ................           (1,500)  ................  ................          (+1,500)
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal....................................................          146,000           175,104           145,870           146,623              +623           -28,481              +753
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety                     220,225           255,858           227,595           218,123            -2,102           -37,735            -9,472
       Administration.............................................
 
Pipeline safety user fees.........................................         -124,500          -152,104          -124,500          -127,123            -2,623           +24,981            -2,623
Pipeline safety design review fee.................................           -2,000            -2,000   ................  ................           +2,000            +2,000   ................
 
Emergency preparedness grants:
    Limitation on emergency preparedness fund.....................          (28,318)          (28,318)          (28,318)          (28,318)  ................  ................  ................
        (Emergency preparedness fund).............................             (188)             (188)             (188)             (188)  ................  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety                     93,725           101,754           103,095            91,000            -2,725           -10,754           -12,095
           Administration.........................................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                    Office of Inspector General
 
Salaries and expenses.............................................           86,223            87,472            86,223            87,472            +1,249   ................           +1,249
 
                   Surface Transportation Board
 
Salaries and expenses.............................................           31,375            32,499            31,375            32,375            +1,000              -124            +1,000
    Offsetting collections........................................           -1,250            -1,250            -1,250            -1,250   ................  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Surface Transportation Board.........................           30,125            31,249            30,125            31,125            +1,000              -124            +1,000
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
      Total, title I, Department of Transportation................       17,801,196        14,355,084        17,179,239        17,783,961           -17,235        +3,428,877          +604,722
          Appropriations..........................................      (18,183,992)      (14,362,334)      (17,180,489)      (17,816,334)        (-367,658)      (+3,454,000)        (+635,845)
          Rescissions.............................................        (-121,546)  ................  ................         (-31,123)         (+90,423)         (-31,123)         (-31,123)
          Rescissions of contract authority.......................        (-260,000)  ................  ................  ................        (+260,000)  ................  ................
          Offsetting collections..................................          (-1,250)          (-7,250)          (-1,250)          (-1,250)  ................          (+6,000)  ................
      (By transfer)...............................................           (1,500)           (1,500)  ................           (1,500)  ................  ................          (+1,500)
      Limitations on obligations..................................      (53,485,000)      (79,319,171)      (53,459,500)      (53,467,000)         (-18,000)     (-25,852,171)          (+7,500)
      Total budgetary resources...................................      (71,286,196)      (93,674,255)      (70,638,739)      (71,250,961)         (-35,235)     (-22,423,294)        (+612,222)
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
       TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
 
                   Management and Administration
 
Executive Offices.................................................           14,500            14,646            14,500            14,500   ................             -146   ................
Administration Support Offices....................................          518,100           577,861           547,000           568,244           +50,144            -9,617           +21,244
 
Program Office Salaries and Expenses:
    Public and Indian Housing.....................................          203,000           210,002           203,000           207,000            +4,000            -3,002            +4,000
    Community Planning and Development............................          102,000           112,115           102,000           107,000            +5,000            -5,115            +5,000
    Housing.......................................................          379,000           397,174           372,000           382,000            +3,000           -15,174           +10,000
    Policy Development and Research...............................           22,700            23,907            22,700            23,100              +400              -807              +400
    Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity............................           68,000            81,132            73,000            69,500            +1,500           -11,632            -3,500
    Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes...............            6,700             7,812             6,700             6,800              +100            -1,012              +100
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal....................................................          781,400           832,142           779,400           795,400           +14,000           -36,742           +16,000
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Management and Administration........................        1,314,000         1,424,649         1,340,900         1,378,144           +64,144           -46,505           +37,244
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                     Public and Indian Housing
 
Tenant-based rental assistance:
    Renewals......................................................       17,486,000        18,333,816        18,151,000        17,982,000          +496,000          -351,816          -169,000
    Tenant protection vouchers....................................          130,000           150,000           130,000           130,000   ................          -20,000   ................
    Administrative fees...........................................        1,530,000         2,020,037         1,530,000         1,620,000           +90,000          -400,037           +90,000
    Incremental rental vouchers...................................  ................          277,000   ................  ................  ................         -277,000   ................
    Incremental family unification vouchers.......................  ................           20,000   ................           20,000           +20,000   ................          +20,000
    Veterans affairs supportive housing...........................           75,000   ................  ................           75,000   ................          +75,000           +75,000
    Sec. 811 mainstream voucher renewals..........................           83,160           107,643           107,643           107,643           +24,483   ................  ................
    Special purpose vouchers......................................  ................          215,000   ................  ................  ................         -215,000   ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal (available this fiscal year).......................       19,304,160        21,123,496        19,918,643        19,934,643          +630,483        -1,188,853           +16,000
 
    Advance appropriations........................................        4,000,000         4,000,000         4,000,000         4,000,000   ................  ................  ................
    Less appropriations from prior year advances..................       -4,000,000        -4,000,000        -4,000,000        -4,000,000   ................  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Tenant-based rental assistance appropriated in this         19,304,160        21,123,496        19,918,643        19,934,643          +630,483        -1,188,853           +16,000
       Pbill......................................................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
Rental assistance demonstration...................................  ................           50,000   ................  ................  ................          -50,000   ................
Public Housing Capital Fund.......................................        1,875,000         1,970,000         1,681,000         1,742,870          -132,130          -227,130           +61,870
Drug elimination (rescission).....................................           -1,101   ................  ................  ................           +1,101   ................  ................
Public Housing Operating Fund.....................................        4,440,000         4,600,000         4,440,000         4,500,000           +60,000          -100,000           +60,000
Choice neighborhoods..............................................           80,000           250,000            20,000            65,000           -15,000          -185,000           +45,000
Family self-sufficiency...........................................           75,000            85,000            75,000            75,000   ................          -10,000   ................
Native American Housing Block Grants..............................          650,000           660,000           650,000   ................         -650,000          -660,000          -650,000
 
Indian block grants:
    Indian Housing Block Grant....................................  ................  ................  ................          650,000          +650,000          +650,000          +650,000
    Indian CDBG...................................................  ................  ................  ................           60,000           +60,000           +60,000           +60,000
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal....................................................  ................  ................  ................          710,000          +710,000          +710,000          +710,000
 
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant...............................            9,000   ................  ................  ................           -9,000   ................  ................
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account................            7,000             8,000             8,000             7,000   ................           -1,000            -1,000
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..............................         (744,047)       (1,269,841)       (1,269,841)       (1,111,111)        (+367,064)        (-158,730)        (-158,730)
Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account...............              100   ................  ................  ................             -100   ................  ................
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..............................          (16,130)  ................  ................  ................         (-16,130)  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Public and Indian Housing............................       26,439,159        28,746,496        26,792,643        27,034,513          +595,354        -1,711,983          +241,870
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                Community Planning and Development
 
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS.......................          330,000           332,000           335,000           330,000   ................           -2,000            -5,000
 
Community Development Fund:
    CDBG formula..................................................        3,000,000         2,800,000         3,000,000         2,900,000          -100,000          +100,000          -100,000
    Indian CDBG...................................................           66,000            80,000            60,000   ................          -66,000           -80,000           -60,000
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal....................................................        3,066,000         2,880,000         3,060,000         2,900,000          -166,000           +20,000          -160,000
 
Youth Build (rescission)..........................................             -460   ................  ................  ................             +460   ................  ................
 
Community development loan guarantees (Sec. 108):
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..............................         (500,000)         (300,000)         (300,000)         (300,000)        (-200,000)  ................  ................
    Rescission....................................................  ................  ................           -2,000   ................  ................  ................           +2,000
HOME Investment Partnerships Program..............................          900,000         1,060,000           767,000            66,000          -834,000          -994,000          -701,000
    Transfer from Housing Trust Fund..............................  ................  ................          133,000   ................  ................  ................         -133,000
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal....................................................          900,000         1,060,000           900,000            66,000          -834,000          -994,000          -834,000
 
Housing Trust Fund (transfer out).................................  ................  ................         -133,000   ................  ................  ................         +133,000
Self-help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program..........           50,000   ................           50,000            55,700            +5,700           +55,700            +5,700
Homeless Assistance Grants........................................        2,135,000         2,480,000         2,185,000         2,235,000          +100,000          -245,000           +50,000
Brownfields (rescission)..........................................           -2,913   ................  ................  ................           +2,913   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Community Planning and Development...................        6,477,627         6,752,000         6,395,000         5,586,700          -890,927        -1,165,300          -808,300
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                         Housing Programs
 
Project-based rental assistance:
    Renewals......................................................        9,520,000        10,545,000        10,504,000        10,611,000        +1,091,000           +66,000          +107,000
    Contract administrators.......................................          210,000           215,000           150,000           215,000            +5,000   ................          +65,000
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal (available this fiscal year).......................        9,730,000        10,760,000        10,654,000        10,826,000        +1,096,000           +66,000          +172,000
 
    Advance appropriations........................................          400,000           400,000           400,000           400,000   ................  ................  ................
    Less appropriations from prior year advances..................         -400,000          -400,000          -400,000          -400,000   ................  ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Project-based rental assistance appropriated in this         9,730,000        10,760,000        10,654,000        10,826,000        +1,096,000           +66,000          +172,000
       bill.......................................................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
Housing for the elderly...........................................          420,000           455,000           416,500           420,000   ................          -35,000            +3,500
Housing for persons with disabilities.............................          135,000           177,000           152,000           137,000            +2,000           -40,000           -15,000
Housing counseling assistance.....................................           47,000            60,000            47,000            47,000   ................          -13,000   ................
Rental housing assistance.........................................           18,000            30,000            30,000            30,000           +12,000   ................  ................
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund..............................           10,000            11,000            11,000            10,000   ................           -1,000            -1,000
    Offsetting collections........................................          -10,000           -11,000           -11,000           -10,000   ................           +1,000            +1,000
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Housing Programs.....................................       10,350,000        11,482,000        11,299,500        11,460,000        +1,110,000           -22,000          +160,500
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                  Federal Housing Administration
 
Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..............................     (400,000,000)     (400,000,000)     (400,000,000)     (400,000,000)  ................  ................  ................
    (Limitation on direct loans)..................................          (20,000)           (5,000)           (5,000)           (5,000)         (-15,000)  ................  ................
    Offsetting receipts...........................................       -7,951,000        -7,003,000        -7,003,000        -7,003,000          +948,000   ................  ................
    Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM)...........................          -36,000           -97,000           -97,000           -97,000           -61,000   ................  ................
    Additional offsetting receipts (Pres. Sec. 244)...............  ................          -29,000   ................  ................  ................          +29,000   ................
    Administrative contract expenses..............................          130,000           174,000           130,000           130,000   ................          -44,000   ................
 
General and Special Risk Program Account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..............................      (30,000,000)      (30,000,000)      (30,000,000)      (30,000,000)  ................  ................  ................
    (Limitation on direct loans)..................................          (20,000)           (5,000)           (5,000)           (5,000)         (-15,000)  ................  ................
    Offsetting receipts...........................................         -876,000          -657,000          -657,000          -657,000          +219,000   ................  ................
    Rescission....................................................          -10,000   ................  ................  ................          +10,000   ................  ................
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Housing Administration.......................       -8,743,000        -7,612,000        -7,627,000        -7,627,000        +1,116,000           -15,000   ................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
             Government National Mortgage Association
 
Guarantees of Mortgage-backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program
 Account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..............................     (500,000,000)     (500,000,000)     (500,000,000)     (500,000,000)  ................  ................  ................
    Administrative expenses.......................................           23,000            28,320            23,000            23,000   ................           -5,320   ................
    Offsetting collections........................................          -94,000          -118,000          -118,000          -118,000           -24,000   ................  ................
    Offsetting receipts...........................................         -742,000          -747,000          -747,000          -747,000            -5,000   ................  ................
    Proposed offsetting receipts (HECM)...........................          -28,000           -21,000           -21,000           -21,000            +7,000   ................  ................
    Additional contract expenses..................................            1,000             1,000   ................            1,000   ................  ................           +1,000
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Gov't National Mortgage Association..................         -840,000          -856,680          -863,000          -862,000           -22,000            -5,320            +1,000
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
                  Policy Development and Research
 
Research and technology...........................................           72,000            50,000            50,000            50,000           -22,000   ................  ................
    (By transfer).................................................  ................  ................  ................          (40,000)         (+40,000)         (+40,000)         (+40,000)
 
                Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
 
Fair housing activities...........................................           65,300            71,000            65,300            65,300   ................           -5,700   ................
 
          Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes
 
Lead hazard reduction.............................................          110,000           120,000            75,000           110,000   ................          -10,000           +35,000
Information Technology Fund.......................................          250,000           334,000            97,000           250,000   ................          -84,000          +153,000
Office of Inspector General.......................................          126,000           129,000           126,000           126,000   ................           -3,000   ................
Transformation initiative.........................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    (by transfer).................................................  ................         (120,000)  ................  ................  ................        (-120,000)  ................
 
                        General Provisions
 
Unobligated balances (Sec. 233) (rescission)......................  ................  ................           -7,000   ................  ................  ................           +7,000
Rural Housing and Developement unobligated balances (Sec. 234)      ................  ................           -3,000   ................  ................  ................           +3,000
 (rescission).....................................................
Management and Administration unobligated balances (Sec. 234)       ................  ................           -2,000   ................  ................  ................           +2,000
 (rescission).....................................................
Unobligated balances (sec. 234) (rescission)......................  ................  ................  ................          -16,000           -16,000           -16,000           -16,000
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Development       35,621,086        40,640,465        37,739,343        37,555,657        +1,934,571        -3,084,808          -183,686
          Appropriations..........................................      (40,972,560)      (44,923,465)      (42,007,343)      (41,824,657)        (+852,097)      (-3,098,808)        (-182,686)
          Rescissions.............................................         (-14,474)  ................         (-14,000)         (-16,000)          (-1,526)         (-16,000)          (-2,000)
          Advance appropriations..................................       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)  ................  ................  ................
          Offsetting receipts.....................................      (-9,727,000)      (-8,672,000)      (-8,643,000)      (-8,643,000)      (+1,084,000)         (+29,000)  ................
          Offsetting collections..................................         (-10,000)         (-11,000)         (-11,000)         (-10,000)  ................          (+1,000)          (+1,000)
      (By transfer)...............................................  ................          120,000   ................           40,000           +40,000           -80,000           +40,000
      (By transfer, emergency)....................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
      (Limitation on direct loans)................................          (40,000)          (10,000)          (10,000)          (10,000)         (-30,000)  ................  ................
      (Limitation on guaranteed loans)............................     (931,260,177)     (931,569,841)     (931,569,841)     (931,411,111)        (+150,934)        (-158,730)        (-158,730)
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
               TITLE III--OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
 
Access Board......................................................            7,548             8,023             7,548             8,023              +475   ................             +475
Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General         ................           50,000   ................  ................  ................          -50,000   ................
 (legislative proposal)...........................................
    Offsetting collections (legislative proposal).................  ................          -50,000   ................  ................  ................          +50,000   ................
Federal Maritime Commission.......................................           25,660            27,387            25,660            25,660   ................           -1,727   ................
National Railroad Passenger Corporation Office of Inspector                  23,999            24,499            24,499            23,999   ................             -500              -500
 General..........................................................
National Transportation Safety Board..............................          103,981           105,170           103,981           105,170            +1,189   ................           +1,189
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.............................          185,000           182,300           177,000           140,000           -45,000           -42,300           -37,000
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.................            3,530             3,530             3,530             3,530   ................  ................  ................
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
      Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies................          349,718           350,909           342,218           306,382           -43,336           -44,527           -35,836
      Grand total.................................................       53,772,000        55,346,458        55,260,800        55,646,000        +1,874,000          +299,542          +385,200
          Appropriations..........................................      (59,506,270)      (59,686,708)      (59,530,050)      (59,947,373)        (+441,103)        (+260,665)        (+417,323)
          Rescissions.............................................        (-136,020)  ................         (-14,000)         (-47,123)         (+88,897)         (-47,123)         (-33,123)
          Rescissions of contract authority.......................        (-260,000)  ................  ................  ................        (+260,000)  ................  ................
          Advance appropriations..................................       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)       (4,400,000)  ................  ................  ................
          Offsetting receipts.....................................      (-9,727,000)      (-8,672,000)      (-8,643,000)      (-8,643,000)      (+1,084,000)         (+29,000)  ................
          Offsetting collections..................................         (-11,250)         (-68,250)         (-12,250)         (-11,250)  ................         (+57,000)          (+1,000)
      (By transfer)...............................................            1,500           121,500   ................           41,500           +40,000           -80,000           +41,500
      (By transfer, emergency)....................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
      (Limitation on obligations).................................      (53,485,000)      (79,319,171)      (53,459,500)      (53,467,000)         (-18,000)     (-25,852,171)          (+7,500)
      Total budgetary resources...................................     (107,257,000)     (134,665,629)     (108,720,300)     (109,113,000)      (+1,856,000)     (-25,552,629)        (+392,700)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                        [all]