HR-9170-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 598.
Sponsored by Steve Womack (R-AR)
What it does
This bill would appropriate federal funds for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development and related agencies for fiscal year 2027 (ending September 30, 2027). It would allocate billions of dollars across the FAA, federal highway, transit, rail, and housing programs, including $14.165 billion for FAA operations, $4 billion for FAA facilities and equipment, $550 million for local and regional infrastructure grants, $538 million for essential air service, and $100 million for Washington, D.C. transit and Union Station improvements. It would also redirect unobligated balances from prior infrastructure laws (including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) to fund several new and existing programs.
Who benefits
Airline passengers and the flying public through FAA safety oversight and air traffic control funding. Residents of fast-growing metropolitan areas receiving priority infrastructure grants. Rural and tribal communities receiving dedicated infrastructure and technical assistance funding. Small and remote communities served by the Essential Air Service program. Washington, D.C.-area commuters and visitors through WMATA and Union Station funding. Airports receiving grants-in-aid. Universities receiving directed research grants in transportation, nuclear technology, and bridge construction. Drone technology developers through infrastructure inspection grant programs. Commercial space transportation companies through FAA licensing support. State and local governments receiving planning and capacity-building assistance.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who bear the cost of the overall appropriation. Programs whose prior unobligated balances are redirected — specifically, the National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grants program and the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants program, which lose funds transferred to other uses. Universities not meeting the narrowly defined criteria for directed (non-competitive) research grants, who are effectively excluded from competing for those funds. Regions not among the top 40 fastest-growing metropolitan areas, which are ineligible for $350 million of the infrastructure grant pool. Applicants for the second career training program at the FAA, who would be barred from new enrollment. Agencies or programs subject to Working Capital Fund assessments, which face new congressional oversight constraints.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this bill makes critical investments in aging transportation infrastructure at a time when the FAA faces well-documented air traffic controller shortages and outdated equipment — issues linked to recent near-miss incidents at major airports. They contend that directing funds to high-growth metropolitan areas and rural communities simultaneously addresses both congestion and equity, while the Essential Air Service funding preserves connectivity for small communities that would otherwise lose commercial air access entirely. They also argue that redirecting unobligated prior-law balances — money already appropriated but unspent — is a fiscally responsible way to fund new priorities without increasing the deficit.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill contains multiple instances of directed, non-competitive grants to unnamed but narrowly described universities and localities, effectively bypassing merit-based award processes and concentrating benefits based on political geography rather than project quality. They contend that transferring unobligated balances from programs like the National Culvert Removal grants and Intercity Passenger Rail grants undermines previously enacted infrastructure priorities and reduces accountability for how those funds are ultimately spent. Critics also argue that the $100 million earmark for Washington, D.C. transit and Union Station — funded by redirecting rail grants — disproportionately benefits the nation's capital at the expense of intercity rail projects nationwide.
Constitutional context
Annual appropriations bills are a core exercise of Congress's power of the purse under Article I, Section 9, which requires that all expenditures be authorized by law. No significant Commerce Clause or major questions doctrine issues arise here, as this bill directly appropriates funds rather than delegating broad rulemaking authority to agencies — though the post-Loper Bright environment means any agency rules implementing these programs face independent judicial review of their statutory authority.
Checks and balances
Congress retains authority through detailed spending conditions, reprogramming approval requirements, and mandatory reporting; the executive branch (DOT, FAA, HUD) gains spending authority but is constrained by line-item allocations, transfer caps, and required congressional notifications before funds can be moved between purposes.
Historical precedent
Annual Transportation-HUD appropriations bills have been enacted every fiscal year for decades; the structure, transfer authorities, and program-level allocations in this bill follow the same framework as prior-year versions, including FY2026 and FY2025 Transportation-HUD acts.