[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 35 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2439-S2480]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PUBLIC HOUSING REFORM AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1997 SUMMARY OF KEY 
                               PROVISIONS


                                FINDINGS

       Recognizes the Federal government's limited capacity and 
     expertise to manage and oversee 3,400 public housing agencies 
     nationwide. Acknowledges the concentration of the very poor 
     in very poor neighborhoods, disincentives for economic self-
     sufficiency, and lack of resident choice have been the 
     unintended consequences resulting from Federal 
     micromanagement of housing programs in the past.


                                PURPOSE

       To reform the public housing system by consolidating 
     programs, streamlining program requirements, and providing 
     maximum flexibility and discretion to public housing 
     authorities [PHAs] who perform well with strict 
     accountability to residents and localities, and to address 
     the problems of housing authorities with severe management 
     deficiencies.


                            BASIC PROVISIONS

       Program Consolidation. Consolidates public housing programs 
     into two flexible block grants--one for operating expenses 
     and one for capital needs. Requires HUD to establish new 
     formulas through negotiated rulemaking. Funding for section 8 
     tenant-based program will continue to be funded as a separate 
     program.
       Elimination of Obsolete Regulations. Eliminates all current 
     HUD rules, regulations, handbooks, and notices pertaining to 
     public housing and section 8 tenant-based programs under the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 one year after enactment; 
     requires HUD to propose new regulations necessary to carry 
     out the revised Act within 9 months.
       Public Housing Agency Plan [PHAP]. Refocuses the 
     responsibility for administering public housing back to the 
     PHA, the tenants and the local community. Requires each PHA 
     to submit a comprehensive public housing agency plan to HUD, 
     consistent with the local Comprehensive Housing Affordability 
     Strategy [CHAS] and developed in conjunction with a resident 
     advisory board.
       The plan is intended to serve as an operating, management 
     and planning tool for PHAs. Plan requirements, to be 
     established through negotiated rulemaking, would include: a 
     description of the PHA's uses for operating and capital 
     funds; a description of the PHA's management policies; 
     procedures relating to eligibility, selection, and admission; 
     plans for capital improvements and demolition and disposition 
     or properties; and policies regarding rents, security, and 
     tenant empowerment activities. The plan would also include a 
     statement of needs which would describe the needs of the low-
     income families in the community and on the waiting list and 
     how the PHA intends to address those needs.
       HUD review of the public housing agency plan would be 
     limited to determine whether the contents of the plan: (1) 
     set forth the information required to be contained in the 
     plan; (2) are consistent with the information and data 
     available to HUD; and (3) are not prohibited by or 
     inconsistent with the requirements of this Act or any 
     applicable law.
       The bill allows HUD to require additional information from 
     troubled PHAs, and a streamlined plan for high-performing 
     PHAs and small PHAs with less than 250 units.
       Vouchering Out of Public Housing. Allows PHAs to convert 
     any public housing development to a tenant-based or 
     ``voucher'' system, but requires the vouchering out of all 
     severely ``distressed'' public housing. Requires each PHA, 
     within 2 years, to assess all public housing for the purpose 
     of vouchering out by performing a cost and market analysis 
     and an impact analysis on the affected community; provides 
     HUD with waiver authority for PHAs to conduct the assessment.
       Choice and Opportunity for Residents. Provides public 
     housing families with an active voice in developing a PHA 
     plan that is responsive to their needs. Provides funds for 
     resident organizations to develop resident management and 
     empowerment activities.
       Federal Preferences. Repeals Federal preferences and allows 
     PHAs to operate according to locally established preferences 
     consistent with local housing needs.
       Income Targeting and Eligibility. Allows PHAs in any fiscal 
     year to make units available for initial occupancy to 
     families with incomes up to 80% of median income, except that 
     at least 40% of the units must be reserved for families whose 
     income does not exceed 30% of the area median and at least 
     75% of the units must be reserved for families whose income 
     does not exceed 60% of area median; requires PHAs to include 
     a plan in the public housing agency plan for achieving a 
     diverse income mix among tenants in each project and among 
     scattered-site public housing. Income targeting provisions 
     for the section 8 tenant-based program are similar to public 
     housing except 50% of vouchers must be reserved for families 
     whose income does not exceed 30% of the area median.
       Rent Flexibility. Allows PHAs to set rents at a level not 
     to exceed 30% of a tenant's adjusted income. Encourages PHAs 
     to develop rental policies that reward employment and upward 
     mobility.
       Ceiling Rents. Allows PHAs to set ceiling rents that 
     reflect the reasonable rental value of units in order to 
     remove the disincentive for residents to work or seek higher 
     paying jobs where rents are based on a percentage of income.
       Minimum Rents. Allows PHAs to set a minimum rent for both 
     Section 8 and public housing units, not to exceed $25 per 
     month.
       Income Adjustments. Allows a PHA to disregard certain 
     income in calculating rents to take away the disincentive for 
     tenants to work and earn higher incomes.
       Troubled PHAs. Requires HUD to take over or appoint a 
     receiver for PHAs that are in substantial default within one 
     year of enactment. Expands HUD's powers for dealing with 
     troubled PHAs by allowing it to break up troubled agencies 
     into one or more agencies, abrogate contracts that impede 
     correction of the agency's default, and demolish and dispose 
     of a PHA's assets. Allows HUD to provide technical assistance 
     to assist near-troubled PHAs from becoming troubled.
       Demolition and Disposition. Repeals the one-for-one 
     replacement requirement and streamlines and makes flexible 
     the demolition and disposition process to permit PHAs to 
     demolish and dispose of vacant or obsolete housing. 
     Authorizes HUD to disapprove any demolition or disposition 
     that is clearly inconsistent with the information and data 
     available to HUD.
       No Net Increase in Public Housing Units. Prohibits PHAs 
     from using capital or operating funds to increase the overall 
     number of public housing units they own and/or operate.
       Substance, Alcohol Abuse, Criminal Activity. Retains 
     provisions enacted as part of last year's Housing Opportunity 
     Program Extension Act that: (1) require PHAs to prohibit 
     occupancy by, or terminate tenancy of, any person a PHA 
     determines is illegally using a controlled substance or has 
     reasonable cause to believe his/her drug use or alcohol abuse 
     could/does interfere with the health, safety, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of other tenants; (2) strengthen the 
     ability of PHAs to evict residents for drug-related criminal 
     activity; (3) deny housing assistance to residents evicted 
     for drug-related activities for up to three years; and (4)

[[Page S2440]]

     provide PHAs with greater access to the criminal conviction 
     records of adult applicants and residents.
       Consortia and Joint Ventures. Allows PHAs to form a 
     consortium with other PHAs, form and operate wholly-owned or 
     controlled subsidiaries, or enter into joint ventures, 
     partnerships or other business arrangements to administer 
     housing programs; requires any income to be used for low-
     income housing or to benefit the tenants of the PHA.
       Designated Housing for the Elderly and Disabled. Retains 
     provisions enacted as part of last year's Housing Opportunity 
     Program Extension Act that: (1) permits PHAs, in their own 
     discretion, to designate public housing projects (or portions 
     thereof) as elderly-only, disabled only, or elderly and 
     disabled housing under their Public Housing Agency Plans; (2) 
     permits PHAs, for purposes of elderly-only housing, to 
     provide a secondary preference for occupancy for near elderly 
     families; and (3) prohibits the eviction of existing tenants 
     as a result of the designation of a public housing project 
     (or portion).
       Community Work Requirements. Requires residents to perform 
     at least 8 hours of community work per month with the 
     exception for the elderly, disabled and those working full-
     time, those in school or receiving vocational training, and 
     single parents or the spouse of an otherwise exempt 
     individual who is the primary caretaker of young children.
       Coordination with Welfare Agencies. Calls on PHAs, to the 
     maximum extent possible, to enter into cooperation agreements 
     with State and local welfare agencies to share information 
     regarding rents, income, and benefits to assist such entities 
     in carrying out their appropriate functions.
       Public Housing Homeownership Opportunities. Authorizes PHAs 
     to sell public housing units to the low-income tenants of the 
     PHA or to any organization that serves as a conduit for sales 
     to such persons. Allows PHAs to assist residents to purchase 
     a principal residence not located in a public housing 
     project.
       Mixed-Finance Projects. Allows PHAs to own, operate, 
     assist, or otherwise participate in one or more mixed-finance 
     projects. Permits consistency with the rent requirements of 
     the low-income housing tax credit. Provides broad flexibility 
     for the development of mixed-finance projects, while 
     maintaining the requirements of the public housing program 
     for units which receive assistance as public housing units.
       Public Housing Mortgages and Security Interests. Authorizes 
     HUD to develop requirements, subject to certain criteria, for 
     PHAs to mortgage or otherwise grant a security interest in 
     any public housing project. Prohibits any action taken under 
     this section to result in any liability to the Federal 
     government.
       Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing. 
     Revises current severely distressed public housing program 
     and sunsets it on October 1, 1999. Permits competitive grants 
     for: demolition of obsolete public housing; site 
     revitalization; and providing replacement housing, including 
     tenant-based assistance.
       Section 8 Tenant Based Assistance. Merges the voucher and 
     certificate program into a single voucher program that 
     emphasizes lease requirements similar to the market place. 
     Repeals requirements that are administratively burdensome to 
     landlords, such as ``take one take all'', endless lease, 
     Federal preferences, and ninety-day termination notice 
     requirements.
       Program Repeals. Repeals several programs, demonstrations, 
     and studies that are either merged into the new block grants, 
     expired, inactive, or already completed including: the Public 
     Housing One-Stop Perinatal Services Demonstration, Public 
     Housing Childhood Development Program, Indian Housing 
     Childhood Development Program, Public Housing Mincs 
     Demonstration, Public Housing Energy Efficiency 
     Demonstration, Public and Assisted Housing Youth Sports 
     Programs, Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Program, 
     Report Regarding Fair Housing Objectives, and Special 
     Projects for Elderly and Handicapped Families.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor the Public Housing 
Reform and Responsibility Act of 1997. This important legislation 
contains significant policy reforms which will greatly improve our 
Nation's public and tenant based housing programs. The Public Housing 
Reform and Responsibility Act of 1997 is very similar to legislation 
(S. 1260) which was passed unanimously by the Senate in January 1996.
  I wish to salute Senator Connie Mack, chairman of the Banking 
Committee's Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, for his 
successful leadership in the development and passage of public housing 
reform legislation in the 104th Congress. I commend Senator Mack for 
his initiative and steadfastness in producing an improved housing bill 
which builds on the lessons learned during the last Congress. 
Substantial input from the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
[HUD], resident associations, public housing authorities and other 
interested parties has been received and incorporated into this 
legislation.
  This legislation addresses just one area of long overdue reform 
needed at HUD. Given limited Federal resources and the need to balance 
the budget by the year 2002, Congress must find more cost-effective 
ways to provide affordable housing. This bill represents a concrete 
step in the fulfillment of Congress' responsibility to the American 
taxpayer to ensure that every Federal dollar is maximized to its 
greatest potential.
  The reform provisions contained in this bill will help to ensure the 
long-term viability of our Nation's existing stock of affordable 
housing and reaffirms our commitment to providing decent, safe, and 
affordable housing. Efficiencies will be realized from the elimination 
and consolidation of duplicative and burdensome Federal regulations, 
while the essential mission of our housing programs is retained and 
strengthened.
  Mr. President, I would like to comment on several guiding principles 
of the legislation. First, it will reform the public housing system 
through the devolution of control from the Federal Government to high 
performing public housing authorities and their residents. It will 
streamline program requirements, consolidate programs and provide 
increased flexibility to public housing authorities which have 
demonstrated a track record of good management. Federal oversight and 
enforcement of troubled housing authorities will be increased 
significantly.
  The bill provides incentives to empower public housing residents and 
facilitate the transition from welfare to work. It provides important 
linkages to the welfare reform bill which became law last year. This 
will allow our Nation's public housing residents a greater opportunity 
to achieve economic independence.
  Mr. President, the bill seeks to increase the local accountability of 
housing authorities through the implementation of a local planning 
process. Public housing authorities will prepare 5-year and annual 
plans which will include all significant matters related to the 
operation of the housing authority. These plans will be required to be 
consistent with relevant State and local comprehensive plans. In 
addition, plans will be reviewed by resident advisory boards.
  The bill recognizes that public housing is most effective when there 
is a viable income mix among its residents. Federal preferences will be 
repealed. The Brooke amendment, which requires residents to pay 30 
percent of their income as rent, would be altered to allow tenants to 
pay ``up to'' 30 percent of their incomes in rent. This will remove a 
work disincentive which has hampered the economic livelihoods of many 
residents, while retaining the 30 percent limit as a cap.
  The bill has additional rent reforms such as income disregards which 
will allow welfare recipients to move to work without losing 30 percent 
of their new-found income to rent, and ceiling rents which will allow 
working families to continue to move up the economic ladder without a 
30 percent tax on income.
  Mr. President, this legislation ensures that a significant percentage 
of units that become vacant in a given year will be set aside for the 
lowest income families. I believe this bill achieves the delicate 
balance between fostering the growth of mixed-income communities while 
ensuring that our neediest citizens will continue to be served.
  The safety and security of the residents of public and assisted 
housing is a paramount objective. Many safety and security measures, 
including allowing public housing authorities increased access to 
criminal conviction records and greater flexibility in the eviction of 
drug criminals, were passed last year in legislation which I 
introduced, the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act (Pub. L. 104-
120). This legislation includes numerous additional safety and security 
provisions, including allowing HUD to waive rent requirements to permit 
police officers a lower rent as an inducement to living in project-
based section 8 housing.
  Furthermore, the bill will streamline the demolition and disposition 
process of distressed housing projects through the repeal of the one-
for-one replacement requirement and other measures. This impractical 
and counterproductive Federal requirement has 

[[Page S2441]]

been waived for the last 2 fiscal years through the appropriations 
process. By making this repeal permanent, our housing authorities will 
be able to operate with certainty.

  Mr. President, the Banking Committee and its Housing Subcommittee 
will continue to evaluate proposals for HUD reorganization. Legislation 
to reform HUD's Federal Housing Administration insured and section 8 
assisted multifamily properties will be introduced this spring. 
Additional legislative initiatives to reform HUD and its multitude of 
duplicative programs also will be considered.
  We must remember that the fundamental goal of this process is to 
address adequately the affordable housing and community development 
needs of our citizens in a time of dwindling Federal resources. It is 
imperative that we protect our needy poor and working class residents 
whom these programs are intended to serve. Reforms must be made with 
caution and careful consideration.
  This legislation has been crafted with the benefit of a lengthy and 
productive debate in the 104th Congress. The Banking Committee 
conducted a series of hearings on HUD and its public and assisted 
housing programs during the 104th Congress. Additional hearings are 
planned for this year. The Banking Committee will seek to achieve the 
swift implementation of needed reforms. The committee will utilize an 
open process with an opportunity for input from all concerned parties, 
which has as its goal the formation of a consensus for change.
  Mr. President, I believe this bill appropriately balances the social 
purpose of public and assisted housing programs while also responding 
to Federal fiscal constraints. I look forward to working with all 
Members of the Banking Committee on a bipartisan basis to ensure the 
speedy passage of this important housing initiative.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in support with Senators Mack and 
D'Amato in introducing the Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act 
of 1997. This legislation is substantially the same as S. 1260 which 
passed the Senate in the 104th Congress, but fell short of enactment in 
the waning days of that Congress.
  This legislation is a critical step to the needed reform of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as a major reform 
bill in its own right. This legislation consolidates the public housing 
and section 8 tenant-based assistance programs, and redirects the 
responsibility and authority for public housing and section 8 back to 
federally assisted residents, the public housing agencies, the 
localities, and the States.
  This bill also dovetails with many of the public housing reforms 
contained in the VA/HUD fiscal years 1996 and 1997 appropriations bills 
and reflects the need to provide streamlined programs and local 
responsibility as the most appropriate method to address local housing 
needs.
  I cannot emphasize enough the need to find a measured solution to the 
housing problems of this Nation and to HUD's overregulation of housing 
and community issues that are better addressed at the local level. This 
bill represents a complete overhaul of the public housing system and 
the section 8 tenant-based program and a move away from HUD's all too 
common one-size-fits-all mentality.
  The linchpin of this legislation is to place the responsibility for 
the decisionmaking for public housing issues, from the demolition of 
obsolete units to the issue of elderly only housing to the voluntary 
conversion of public housing to tenant-based assistance, in the hands 
of local public housing agencies through public housing agency plans 
developed in conjunction with residents and consistent with state and 
local housing plans.
  In addition, this legislation would continue to protect the poorest 
of the poor by requiring PHA's to continue to make 40 percent of all 
units available to families whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of 
the area median income, 75 percent of all units to families whose 
incomes do not exceed 60 percent of median income and to make all other 
units available to families with incomes no greater than 80 percent of 
median income.
  This bill also reforms and consolidates the section 8 voucher and 
certificate program into a single voucher program which will reduce 
administrative burden and increase the acceptability of vouchers in the 
private housing market.
  Finally, the bill continues the Distressed Public Housing Program for 
the demolition of obsolete and uninhabitable public housing. Obsolete 
public housing has long been a drag on communities, and I consider it 
an absolute priority to remove these projects and provide low-income 
families with positive, affordable housing choices.
  I see this bill as part of a downpayment on a larger HUD reform 
effort which I expect to be pursued throughout this Congress. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on these important issues and I 
am optimistic that we can address many of them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY:
  S. 464. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to allow 
revision of veterans' benefits decisions based on clear and 
unmistakable error; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


              THE CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE ERROR LEGISLATION

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation to 
ensure that the Board of Veterans' Appeals errs on behalf of our 
veterans rather than on the side of the Federal Government. 
Specifically, my legislation will allow a veteran to correct a rating 
decision which is a clear and unmistakable error.
  I am pleased to be joining with Congressman Lane Evans in introducing 
this legislation. Congressman Evans has been a champion in this cause 
and he has shepherded clear and unmistakable error legislation through 
the House of Representatives in the last two Congresses. The House 
Veterans' Affairs Committee will markup this legislation later this 
week; again, paving the way for House passage of this legislation. This 
is the first time that Senate legislation has been introduced on clear 
and unmistakable error. I look forward to working with my colleagues at 
the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee to raise the profile of this 
issue in the Senate in the coming days.
  Since joining the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee in the last 
Congress, I have made it a priority to work closely with the veterans 
of my State. This legislative initiative is a direct result of that 
partnership between my office and the veterans of Washington State. 
Several veterans service organizations have contacted me in support of 
this legislation, and I do also know that this issue is a priority for 
the Disabled American Veterans.
  For the record, I want to detail a vivid example of a clear and 
unmistakable error. The Department of Veterans Affairs schedule for 
rating disabilities prescribes a 40-percent disability rating for an 
amputation of the leg below the knee and a 60-percent disability rating 
for an amputation of the leg above the knee. In an instance where a 
veteran had an above the knee amputation but was assigned a 40-percent 
rating, the rating decision is indisputably wrong--clear and 
unmistakably wrong. My legislation would ensure that egregious errors 
like this at any administrative level of adjudication would be subject 
to review.
  In recent months, I've handled several cases with the Department of 
Veterans Affairs that directly involved clear and unmistakable error. 
In one case, a veteran with a serious shoulder injury dating back to 
the Vietnam war was rated incorrectly for more than 20 years. In 
another case, a veteran with PTSD also dating to service in Vietnam was 
misdiagnosed for a lengthy period, affecting his disability rating and 
benefits and the treatment he received. To the VA's credit, some cases 
of clear and unmistakable error are reversible but it depends on where 
the veteran is in the VA process. Some cases of clear and unmistakable 
error no longer offer recourse to the veteran. My legislation seeks to 
correct this. I believe that we must make available every opportunity 
to right a wrong on behalf of a veteran.
  Importantly, this legislation will also allow a veteran who under 
current law cannot seek to have a clear and unmistakable error claim 
reviewed the opportunity to request that the Board of Veterans' Appeals 
review its prior decision. So often we in Congress talk about providing 
for veterans or about meeting our obligations to veterans.

[[Page S2442]]

 That is what this bill is all about; it gives a veteran the right to 
request a review rather than subjecting an ailing vet to a sometimes 
faceless bureaucracy hesitant to correct its mistakes.
  This issue has been cast by some as arcane and complicated. And it 
is. But let me break it down to its most basic element for the Members 
of the Senate. Clear and unmistakable errors are errors that have 
deprived and continue to deprive veterans of benefits for which their 
entitlement is undeniable. To deny a veteran due to a bureaucratic 
mistake is beyond comprehension. When I first heard of this problem, I 
doubted the severity of the problem. But for a small number of 
veterans, the problem is real, very real, and it is causing hardships 
for some in meeting the challenges of everyday life.
  The Congressional Budget Office determined a previous version of this 
legislation to be budget neutral. Stated another way, this legislation 
would not require additional resources for the VA or take needed 
resources from other VA programs or benefits.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs does have a number of objections 
to the legislation. I do look forward to working with Secretary Jesse 
Brown to address these concerns so that this important veterans 
legislation can go forward. Secretary Brown is the most passionate 
advocate for veterans within government service. I have every 
confidence that he will work with me and other concerned Members to 
ensure that the VA works for the veteran.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to review this legislation and 
join me as cosponsors of this important initiative on behalf of 
veterans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Byrd and Mr. Sarbanes):
  S. 465. A bill to establish an Emergency Commission To End the Trade 
Deficit; to the Committee on Finance.


  THE EMERGENCY COMMISSION TO END THE TRADE DEFICIT ESTABLISHMENT ACT

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor of the 
Senate today with my distinguished colleague, the Senator from West 
Virginia, Senator Byrd. There is no one in the Senate for whom I have 
greater respect. I am pleased today to join him in introducing a piece 
of legislation dealing with a very important issue for this country, 
the trade deficit. Most especially, the merchandise trade deficit.
  On behalf of myself, Senator Byrd, and Senator Sarbanes, we are 
introducing legislation today which will establish a commission that 
will meet and make recommendations on how to end the crippling and 
growing merchandise trade deficit in our country.
  We have had a great deal of discussion about the budget deficit in 
the U.S. Senate, and in Congress in recent months. In fact, it was not 
too long ago we had a stack of books, I venture to say 5-foot high, 
stacked on a desk that was, I think, to demonstrate deficits in various 
budgets for many years. That was one deficit.
  That deficit is a difficult and a serious issue and one we must 
address. The question was whether it should be addressed through an 
attempt to alter the Constitution of the United States. There was great 
controversy about that. Yet, there was no disagreement about whether we 
had a responsibility to address the fiscal policy deficits. We have 
addressed them. We need to do more. They are coming down. They have 
been decreased by over 60 percent. The budget deficit has been coming 
down substantially for 4 years in a row. We have made progress, but we 
have a ways to go.
  But there is another deficit in this country that is not even 
whispered about in this town or on the floor of Senate save for a 
couple of Members who care about it and come to speak about it. That is 
the merchandise trade deficit. That is a deficit that has not been 
reduced each of the last 4 years, as has the budget deficit.
  This is a deficit that has been growing each of the last 4 years. 
This is a deficit that last year was the largest in our country's 
history. This is a deficit that, added on top of other trade deficits 
which have occurred for 21 consecutive years, now stacks up to a pile 
of $2 trillion. We have nearly $2 trillion of accumulated merchandise 
trade deficits that this country must repay some day with a lower 
standard of living here in the United States.
  This is the third straight year of record trade deficits. It is the 
third straight year of new record levels in a string of 21 consecutive 
years of trade deficits. The last trade surplus in this country was in 
the year 1975.
  Now, I have a chart I will show that demonstrates the fact that the 
United States has moved from a net creditor position to a net debtor 
position.
  We are the largest debtor nation in the world. This has happened in a 
very short period of time. This shows what has happened to our 
position. We used to export more than we imported. We now import far, 
far more than we export. The question is, what do we import in this 
country?
  This describes, of course, the yearly merchandise trade deficits, and 
this chart has enough red on it to demonstrate where we have been and 
where we are going. This is a very sad picture. It cries out for a 
remedy. This is not the picture of a strong economy. This is not a road 
map to a strong economic future.
  The next chart shows that the U.S. imports that are coming into this 
country consist particularly of manufactured goods, and they make up 85 
percent of our Nation's imports. These manufactured goods are mostly 
high-value goods that come from skilled labor. In fact, 75 percent of 
our trade deficit consists of high-value manufactured goods, such as 
automobiles, auto equipment, electronics goods and telecommunications 
equipment.
  I have another chart that shows the U.S. imports of manufactured 
goods. You will see that we now import goods sufficient to match 
slightly over half of all that we make here. That is quite a statistic. 
You can see the growth of it. It is almost exponential growth. Imported 
manufactured goods as a percentage of the U.S. manufacturing gross 
domestic product have increased from 11 percent in 1970 to 56 percent 
this past year. As I showed from the previous chart, most of it is 
high-value manufactured goods.
  If I might make a point with respect to our neighbor to the south, 
Mexico. Mexico now sends us more automobiles than we ship to the rest 
of the world. Let me repeat that. Today, the United States imports more 
automobiles from Mexico than we send to the rest of the world.
  The next chart shows that the trade deficit we have is principally 
with six other countries. With Japan, we have had a $50 billion to $60 
billion-a-year trade deficit for a long period. We now have a 
substantial deficit with China, amounting to nearly $40 billion. With 
Canada and Mexico, our two nearest neighbors, we have a combined 
deficit of nearly $40 billion.
  You can see the dilemma in this country, where we have growing trade 
deficits with respect to Canada and Mexico and substantially growing 
trade deficit with respect to China and long-abiding deficits with 
respect to Japan. You can see what is happening. It is sapping the 
economic strength of our manufacturing sector in this country.
  Yesterday, on a radio program, the talk radio announcer said, ``I 
don't understand, Senator Dorgan. Unemployment has come down, and our 
economy seems strong.'' I said, ``Yes, all that seems to be the case.'' 
I know that there are neighbors, no doubt, who seem to have great-
looking homes, a shiny new car, maybe newly poured cement for a new 
driveway, and they have all the latest gadgets. But you don't see their 
credit statement. They may well be deep in debt with all that shiny new 
equipment in their garage.
  The question is not how things appear, but what are the fundamentals 
of our economy? What does the foundation look like? The foundation of 
an economy that works and one that will grow and provide jobs in the 
future has a strong manufacturing sector. No country will long remain a 
world economic power if it does not retain a strong manufacturing base.
  I have said often--and people probably get tired of hearing it from 
me--that you cannot measure this country's economic strength, as the 
economists so often do, by measuring what we consume every month or 
quarter. That is not a measurement of economic strength. Our economic 
strength is measured by what we produce, not what we consume.
  What we produce from our manufacturing sector is all too often now 
moving. Our productive sector is moving out from our country to other 
countries. Jobs are moving from here to

[[Page S2443]]

there. It weakens our country internally and weakens our manufacturing 
sector.
  The next chart talks about trade and jobs. There has been an old 
formula--in fact, they used this formula to sell the NAFTA trade 
package to us. They said every billion dollars in trade is the 
equivalent of 20,000 jobs. What would that mean? In 1996, our trade 
deficit meant we had a loss of 3.8 million good jobs; 3.8 million good 
jobs were lost. Just the increase in the deficit from 1995 to 1996--
means another 300,000 jobs are gone. They have gone across the border, 
offshore, overseas. That is the dilemma.
  Now, what do people say will happen to the trade deficit? We have the 
largest trade deficit in this country's history. You can see what has 
happened to it. It has been a steady, growing deficit. It continues to 
be a serious problem, and now it is at record levels. Some forecasters 
say that this deficit is going to continue to reach new record levels. 
In fact, one expert is predicting a deficit of $354 billion by 2007.
  You know, we must think about what these trends mean. What is this 
all about? If I might simplify it for people, let us look at Japan. 
This is an ally of ours, a good country, a country that, by all 
accounts, has citizens who work hard and strive to compete aggressively 
in the world marketplace and do very, very well. We have become a 
sponge for much of their manufactured goods, and they make pretty good 
manufactured goods. They are tough, shrewd international competitors.
  But when we send a pound of T-bone steak to Tokyo, guess what? A 
North Dakota rancher is often out during calving time in some pretty 
tough weather. He works really hard to deal with the tasks of everyday 
life on the ranch to care for maybe a 300-cow herd. That rancher raises 
some beef and then markets the beef. Eventually the beef finds a 
market, some in this country and some we want to export. When that 
North Dakota rancher wants to export beef to Japan, guess what happens 
to that beef? Japan regularly slaps a 50-percent tariff on every pound 
of beef going into Japan.
  Does anybody think that is reasonable? And this is after our 
negotiations. It is after we have supposedly succeeded in negotiating 
down the tariffs on beef going into Japan. We have a celebration, but 
there still is a 50-percent tariff on T-bone steak going to Tokyo.
  Guess what? Under any other standards of measurement, that would be 
considered a failure in international trade negotiations. Only because 
we have such low expectations from those with whom we trade are we 
willing to say that is a success. It is not a success, as far as I am 
concerned.
  Why did we get to this position? Well, briefly, after the Second 
World War, our trade policy was foreign policy. Our trade policy was 
structured on the premise that we were the biggest, the best, the most, 
the strongest country on the face of the Earth, and we could compete 
with almost anybody in this world with one hand tied behind our back 
and win the competition. So our trade policy with Japan and European 
countries and others was largely foreign policy.
  What we needed to do to at that time was to construct a trade 
relationship with our allies that helped them? We could certainly 
afford to help them, and we felt we must help them. That was our trade 
policy. For a quarter century it was necessary, and it worked, and 
guess what? We helped grow and nurture the restoration of post-Second-
World-War economies, sufficient so that, I am pleased to say and I 
think others would be as well, that we now have very tough, shrewd 
competitors in the world marketplace. They are allies, friends and, 
yes, in the market system they are competitors.
  It is time that we understand that this country can no longer win 
with one hand tied behind its back. It is time to understand that trade 
policy must be more than foreign policy, and we must insist on 
reciprocal trade treatment from our allies and trading partners. We 
must insist on not only free and open and expanded trade, but 
especially fair trade.
  It upsets me to discover what we negotiated in a trade agreement with 
our neighbor to the north, a wonderful country with good people in it, 
Canada. We discover what is inside. It is like peeling an onion. You 
get the layers off and figure out what is in the middle of the treaty.
  You discover that literally hundreds of semi-trucks come south from 
Canada into our country with durum wheat and barley. These are crops 
that we already grow in substantial surplus. Then I get in a little 
truck--a little, 12-year-old, 2-ton orange truck--with a North Dakota 
farmer with 220 bushels of wheat, and we go up to the Canadian border 
near Portal, ND. And we are stopped. They say, ``What do you have in 
the truck?'' ``We have 220 bushels of wheat.'' ``You can't go into 
Canada with wheat.'' ``Gee. We just passed 20 semitrucks coming south 
into our marketplace with wheat.'' ``Well, that may be but you can't 
take American wheat into Canada.''

  That is the sort of thing that is fundamentally wrong with our trade 
agreements. We need fully reciprocal trade with all of our trade 
allies.
  Let me finally in the last chart talk about what we are here to 
propose: An emergency commission to end the trade deficit. We need to 
respond to and deal with the growing, burgeoning problem in this 
country. That is the record merchandise trade deficits that we face and 
that our children and their children must repay with a lower standard 
of living. We must stop it. How do we stop it?
  Senator Byrd, myself, and Senator Sarbanes propose that a commission 
be impaneled that addresses the wide range of concerns: The manner in 
which the Government establishes and administers our trade policies and 
objectives; the causes and consequences of the persistence and growth 
of the overall trade deficit, as well as the specific bilateral trade 
deficits I mentioned; the relationship of United States trade deficits 
to both comparative and competitive advantages; the relationship 
between investment flows, both in and out of the U.S.; and, the 
development of policies and alternative strategies to end the trade 
deficit by 2007 and improve the economic well-being of our citizens.
  Mr. President, I am delighted that Senator Byrd is on the floor 
today. I want to make one additional comment.
  Those who talk about trade in public discourse here in the U.S. 
Congress and about town are generally divided into two groups. There is 
the group that is in favor of free trade and has been for a couple of 
decades. They are called the free traders, and they are described as 
those with world vision, those who can see over the horizon, who have 
the creative ability to think expansively about what our obligations 
are and what the future will be. And then there are others. They are 
classified as the xenophobic isolationist stooges who simply don't get 
it.
  The minute you speak about the trade problem and the trade deficit, 
they say you are a ``protectionist,'' a ``xenophobic isolationist. That 
is who that is.''
  I come from a State in which about half of what we produce must find 
a foreign home. I am the last person that would want to create walls 
around our border. I want expanded trade. I want open trade. I want 
free trade. But I demand that trade be fair.
  American businesses and American workers ought to be able to expect 
that they are going to compete in a marketplace that is a fair 
marketplace. They should not be expected to compete against a 14-year-
old that works 14 hours a day and is paid 14 cents an hour in some 
foreign factory producing a good that is then shipped to Fargo, 
Pittsburgh, or Denver. That is not fair trade, and American workers 
ought not to expect that.
  We simply say there is a chronic and growing problem that ought to be 
addressed. We propose that an emergency commission be impaneled to end 
the trade deficit and make recommendations on how to do it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. 
        Feinstein and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 466. A bill to reduce gun trafficking by prohibiting bulk 
purchases of handguns; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                  THE ANTI-GUN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 1997

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to stop the growing gun violence and death associated with interstate 
gun trafficking.

[[Page S2444]]

  Recently, the scourge of gun violence invaded all of our homes, when 
a madman opened fire on innocent tourists atop the Empire State 
Building. When the shooting stopped, one person was dead, and six were 
injured. One of the victims was 27-year-old Matthew Gross of Montclair, 
NJ. Matthew Gross was shot in the head, and lingered in a coma, 
connected to a ventilator, for 8 agonizing days. Thankfully, this 
courageous young man has come out of the coma and is beginning the long 
and arduous task of recovery.
  Mr. President, this gun violence must stop. It is too easy to obtain 
a gun in America. This morning, I stood with Matthew's father and 
brother and we all committed ourselves to intensify the fight against 
gun violence. Because Matthew Gross wasn't only a victim of a disturbed 
gunman. He was a victim of the epidemic of gun violence. Reducing this 
violence must be a top national priority.
  Today, Mr. President, I am introducing the Anti-Gun Trafficking Act, 
to reduce interstate gun trafficking by prohibiting bulk purchases of 
handguns. The bill would prohibit the purchase of more than one handgun 
during any 30-day period. I am joined in this effort by Senators 
Kennedy, John Kerry, Feinstein, and Torricelli.
  Mr. President, no one needs more than one gun a month. In New Jersey, 
we have banned assault weapons, and we have established strict 
permitting requirements for handgun purchases. Yet the effectiveness of 
these restrictions is substantially diminished because the controls in 
other States are far less strict.
  Unfortunately, many gun traffickers make bulk purchases of handguns 
in States with weak firearm laws, and then transport them to other 
States with tougher laws for illegal sale on the streets. This has 
helped spread the plague of gun violence nationwide. And without 
Federal limits, there is little that any one State can do about it.
  A few years ago, Mr. President, the State of Virginia enacted 
legislation designed to prevent gunrunners from buying large quantities 
of handguns in Virginia for export to other States. Under that State 
law, as under my proposal, handgun purchases are limited to one per 
month. This Virginia statute has proven to be very effective in 
controlling gun trafficking from Virginia.
  Before the ban, Virginia had become the firearm supermarket of the 
East Coast. It supplied more than 40 percent of the guns used in crimes 
in New York City. But under the new legislation, the results were 
dramatic. The percentage of guns traced back to Virginia gun dealers 
fell by 61 percent for guns recovered in New York, 67 percent for guns 
recovered in Massachusetts, and 38 percent for guns recovered in New 
Jersey.
  Mr. President, Virginia's experience suggests that a ban on bulk 
purchases can substantially reduce gunrunning. However, to be truly 
effective, such a limit must be enacted nationwide. Otherwise, 
gunrunners will simply move their operations to other States. The only 
way to close down the ``iron pipeline'' is to plug it up at all ends.
  The Anti-Gun Trafficking Act will impose such a nationwide limit on 
bulk gun purchases. I do not claim this restriction would end all 
handgun violence. And, personally, I don't see why anyone needs even 12 
guns a year. However, it is a reasonable and modest step in the right 
direction.
  Mr. President, a one-gun-a-month law would take a bite out of 
gunrunning without imposing any burden on hunters and other law-abiding 
gun users. After all, who but gang members, drug dealers, and other 
criminals needs more than 12 guns a year? Law abiding citizens are made 
safer by limiting the number of firearms available for purchase at one 
time.
  Mr. President, this is a sensible approach, and one which will help 
to make our families, our streets, our communities, and our country 
safer. I urge my colleagues to support restrictions on bulk purchases 
on handguns and to join in cosponsoring ``One Gun a Month.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 466

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Anti-Gun Trafficking Act of 
     1997''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST MULTIPLE HANDGUN SALES OR 
                   PURCHASES.

       (a) Prohibition.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(y) Prohibition Against Multiple Handgun Sales or 
     Purchases.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for an licensed 
     dealer--
       ``(A) during any 30-day period, to sell 2 or more handguns 
     to an individual who is not licensed under section 923; or
       ``(B) to sell a handgun to an individual who is not 
     licensed under section 923 and who purchased a handgun during 
     the 30-day period ending on the date of the sale.
       ``(2) Time limitation.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     individual who is not licensed under section 923 to purchase 
     2 or more handguns during any 30-day period.
       ``(3) Exchanges.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to an 
     exchange of 1 handgun for 1 handgun.''.
       (b) Penalties.--Section 924(a)(2) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``or (o)'' and inserting 
     ``(o), or (y)''.

     SEC. 3. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR MAKING KNOWINGLY FALSE 
                   STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH FIREARMS.

       Section 924(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``5 years''.

     SEC. 4. DEADLINES FOR DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS RELATED TO 
                   CERTAIN FIREARMS TRANSFERS.

       (a) Handgun Transfers Subject to the Waiting Period.--
     Section 922(s)(6)(B)(i) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``20 business days'' and inserting ``35 
     calendar days''.
       (b) Firearms Transfers Subject to Instant Check.--Section 
     922(t)(2)(C) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``not later than 35 calendar days after the date 
     the system provides the licensee with the number,'' after 
     ``[(C)]''.

     SEC. 5. REVISED DEFINITION.

       Section 921(a)(21)(C) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``, except that such term shall include 
     any person who transfers more than 1 handgun in any 30-day 
     period to a person who is not a licensed dealer'' before the 
     semicolon.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. 
        Dorgan):
  S. 467. A bill to prevent discrimination against victims of abuse in 
all lines of insurance; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


               victims of abuse insurance protection act

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues and original cosponsors Senator Ron Wyden, Senator Patty 
Murray, and Senator Byron Dorgan in reintroducing the Victims of Abuse 
Insurance Protection Act, legislation that will outlaw discrimination 
by insurance companies against the victims of domestic violence in all 
lines of insurance. Congressman Bernie Sanders is introducing an 
identical bill in the House this week.
  With this legislation, we are trying to correct an abhorrent practice 
by many insurance companies--the denial of coverage to battered women. 
It is plain, old-fashioned discrimination. It is profoundly unjust and 
wrong. And, it is the worst of blaming the victim. Denying women access 
to the insurance they require to foster their mobility out of an 
abusive situation must be stopped.
  While we were successful in including language in the Kassebaum-
Kennedy law which prohibits insurers from denying insurance because the 
applicant is a victim of abuse, insurance companies can still charge 
victims of abuse a higher rate.
  In Minnesota, three insurance companies denied an entire women's 
shelter insurance because, as a battered women's shelter, we were high 
risk. The Women's Shelter in Rochester, MN, was told that it was 
considered uninsurable because its employees are almost all battered 
women.
  Another shelter in rural Minnesota purchased a car so that women and 
children in danger who were trying to leave an abusive situation could 
use this anonymous vehicle and thus the abuser could not track their 
automobile to find them. The shelter could not find a company to 
provide them with automobile insurance once the companies knew of the 
risks surrounding battered women.
  A woman in Iowa named Sandra was denied life insurance after the 
company found out that she had been beaten up twice. In one incident, 
she had

[[Page S2445]]

been so badly beaten by an ex-boyfriend that her cheekbones were 
splintered, and one of her eyes had to be put back in its socket. Her 
mother, Mary, was the one who originally applied for the life insurance 
policy, explaining, ``I didn't ask for a lot of coverage. I just wanted 
to apply for $1,000 coverage, just enough that if something happened, 
God forbid, that we could at least bury her.''
  Mary was angry about the denial, so she wrote to State officials and 
the Iowa insurance commissioner's office tried to intervene on their 
behalf. In four separate letters, the insurance company officials 
stated they denied the coverage because of a history of assaults. In 
one letter they defended their decision by citing numerous documents 
which showed that people involved in domestic violence incidents are at 
a higher risk of death and injury than others, and, therefore, not a 
good risk.
  There are, unfortunately, many other instances of victims of domestic 
abuse being denied fire insurance, homeowners insurance, life 
insurance, and health insurance--denied because they were victims of a 
crime.
  This bill goes a long way toward treating domestic violence as the 
crime that it is--not a voluntary risky behavior that can be easily 
changed and not as a pre-existing condition. Insurance company policies 
that deny coverage to victims only serve to perpetuate the myth that 
victims are responsible for their abuse.
  In order to address the practice of insurers using domestic violence 
as a basis for determining whom to cover and how much to charge with 
respect to health, life, disability, homeowners, and auto insurance, 
this legislation prohibits insurance companies from discriminating 
against victims in any of the following ways:
  First, denying or terminating insurance; second, limiting coverage or 
denying claims; third, charging higher premiums; or fourth, terminating 
health coverage for victims of abuse in situations where coverage was 
originally issued in the abuser's name, and acts of the abuser would 
cause the victim to lose coverage.
  This legislation also keeps victims' information confidential by 
prohibiting insurers from improperly using, disclosing, or transferring 
abuse-related information for any purpose unrelated to the direct 
provision of health care services.
  Insurance companies should not be allowed to discriminate against 
anyone for being a victim of domestic violence. We may never know the 
full extent of the problem, but it is a grossly unfair practice and 
should be prohibited.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 467

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Victims of Abuse Insurance 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Abuse.--The term ``abuse'' means the occurrence of one 
     or more of the following acts by a current or former 
     household or family member, intimate partner, or caretaker:
       (A) Attempting to cause or causing another person bodily 
     injury, physical harm, substantial emotional distress, 
     psychological trauma, rape, sexual assault, or involuntary 
     sexual intercourse.
       (B) Engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly 
     committing acts toward another person, including following 
     the person without proper authority and under circumstances 
     that place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or 
     physical harm.
       (C) Subjecting another person to false imprisonment or 
     kidnapping.
       (D) Attempting to cause or causing damage to property so as 
     to intimidate or attempt to control the behavior of another 
     person.
       (2) Abuse-related medical condition.--The term ``abuse-
     related medical condition'' means a medical condition which 
     arises in whole or in part out of an action or pattern of 
     abuse.
       (3) Abuse status.--The term ``abuse status'' means the fact 
     or perception that a person is, has been, or may be a subject 
     of abuse, irrespective of whether the person has sustained 
     abuse-related medical conditions or has incurred abuse-
     related claims.
       (4) Health benefit plan.--The term ``health benefit plan'' 
     means any public or private entity or program that provides 
     for payments for health care, including--
       (A) a group health plan (as defined in section 607 of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1167)) or a multiple employer welfare arrangement (as defined 
     in section 3(40) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1102(40)) that 
     provides health benefits;
       (B) any other health insurance arrangement, including any 
     arrangement consisting of a hospital or medical expense 
     incurred policy or certificate, hospital or medical service 
     plan contract, or health maintenance organization subscriber 
     contract;
       (C) workers' compensation or similar insurance to the 
     extent that it relates to workers' compensation medical 
     benefits (as defined by the Federal Trade Commission); and
       (D) automobile medical insurance to the extent that it 
     relates to medical benefits (as defined by the Federal Trade 
     Commission).
       (5) Health carrier.--The term ``health carrier'' means a 
     person that contracts or offers to contract on a risk-
     assuming basis to provide, deliver, arrange for, pay for or 
     reimburse any of the cost of health care services, including 
     a sickness and accident insurance company, a health 
     maintenance organization, a nonprofit hospital and health 
     service corporation or any other entity providing a plan of 
     health insurance, health benefits or health services.
       (6) Insured.--The term ``insured'' means a party named on a 
     policy, certificate, or health benefit plan, including an 
     individual, corporation, partnership, association, 
     unincorporated organization or any similar entity, as the 
     person with legal rights to the benefits provided by the 
     policy, certificate, or health benefit plan. For group 
     insurance, such term includes a person who is a beneficiary 
     covered by a group policy, certificate, or health benefit 
     plan. For life insurance, the term refers to the person whose 
     life is covered under an insurance policy.
       (7) Insurer.--The term ``insurer'' means any person, 
     reciprocal exchange, interinsurer, Lloyds insurer, fraternal 
     benefit society, or other legal entity engaged in the 
     business of insurance, including agents, brokers, adjusters, 
     and third party administrators. The term also includes health 
     carriers, health benefit plans, and life, disability, and 
     property and casualty insurers.
       (8) Policy.--The term ``policy'' means a contract of 
     insurance, certificate, indemnity, suretyship, or annuity 
     issued, proposed for issuance or intended for issuance by an 
     insurer, including endorsements or riders to an insurance 
     policy or contract.
       (9) Subject of abuse.--The term ``subject of abuse'' means 
     a person against whom an act of abuse has been directed, a 
     person who has prior or current injuries, illnesses, or 
     disorders that resulted from abuse, or a person who seeks, 
     may have sought, or had reason to seek medical or 
     psychological treatment for abuse, protection, court-ordered 
     protection, or shelter from abuse.

     SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATORY ACTS PROHIBITED.

       (a) In General.--No insurer or health carrier may, directly 
     or indirectly, engage in any of the following acts or 
     practices on the basis that the applicant or insured, or any 
     person employed by the applicant or insured or with whom the 
     applicant or insured is known to have a relationship or 
     association, is, has been, or may be the subject of abuse:
       (1) Denying, refusing to issue, renew or reissue, or 
     canceling or otherwise terminating an insurance policy or 
     health benefit plan.
       (2) Restricting, excluding, or limiting insurance or health 
     benefit plan coverage for losses incurred as a result of 
     abuse or denying a claim incurred by an insured as a result 
     of abuse, except as otherwise permitted or required by State 
     laws relating to life insurance beneficiaries.
       (3) Adding a premium differential to any insurance policy 
     or health benefit plan.
       (4) Terminating health coverage for a subject of abuse 
     because coverage was originally issued in the name of the 
     abuser and the abuser has divorced, separated from, or lost 
     custody of the subject of abuse or the abuser's coverage has 
     terminated voluntarily or involuntarily and the subject of 
     abuse does not qualify for extension of coverage under part 6 
     of subtitle B of title I or the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1161 et seq.) or 4980B of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Nothing in this paragraph 
     prohibits the insurer from requiring the subject of abuse to 
     pay the full premium for the subject's coverage under the 
     health plan if the requirements are applied to all insureds 
     of the health carrier. The insurer may terminate group 
     coverage after the continuation coverage required by this 
     paragraph has been in force for 18 months if it offers 
     conversion to an equivalent individual plan. The continuation 
     of health coverage required by this paragraph shall be 
     satisfied by any extension of coverage under part 6 of 
     subtitle B of title I or the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1161 et seq.) or 4980B of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 provided to a subject of abuse 
     and is not intended to be in addition to any extension of 
     coverage provided under part 6 of subtitle B of title I or 
     the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 
     U.S.C. 1161 et seq.) or 4980B of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       (b) Use of Information.--
       (1) In general.--No person employed by or contracting with 
     an insurer or health benefit plan may use, disclose, or 
     transfer information relating to an applicant's or insured's 
     abuse status or abuse-related medical condition or the 
     applicant's or insured's status as a family member, employer, 
     or associate,

[[Page S2446]]

     person in a relationship with a subject of abuse for any 
     purpose unrelated to the direct provision of health care 
     services unless such use, disclosure, or transfer is required 
     by an order of an entity with authority to regulate insurance 
     or an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. In 
     addition, such a person may not disclose or transfer 
     information relating to an applicant's or insured's location 
     or telephone number. Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
     construed as limiting or precluding a subject of abuse from 
     obtaining the subject's own insurance records from an 
     insurer.
       (2) Authority of subject of abuse.--A subject of abuse, at 
     the absolute discretion of the subject of abuse, may provide 
     evidence of abuse to an insurer for the limited purpose of 
     facilitating treatment of an abuse-related condition or 
     demonstrating that a condition is abuse-related. Nothing in 
     this paragraph shall be construed as authorizing an insurer 
     or health carrier to disregard such provided evidence.

     SEC. 4. INSURANCE PROTOCOLS FOR SUBJECTS OF ABUSE.

       Insurers shall develop and adhere to written policies 
     specifying procedures to be followed by employees, 
     contractors, producers, agents and brokers for the purpose of 
     protecting the safety and privacy of a subject of abuse and 
     otherwise implementing the provisions of this Act when taking 
     an application, investigating a claim, or taking any other 
     action relating to a policy or claim involving a subject of 
     abuse.

     SEC. 5. REASONS FOR ADVERSE ACTIONS.

       An insurer that takes an action that adversely affects a 
     subject of abuse, shall advise the subject of abuse applicant 
     or insured of the specific reasons for the action in writing. 
     Reference to general underwriting practices or guidelines 
     does not constitute a specific reason.

     SEC. 6. LIFE INSURANCE.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit a life 
     insurer from declining to issue a life insurance policy if 
     the applicant or prospective owner of the policy is or would 
     be designated as a beneficiary of the policy, and if--
       (1) the applicant or prospective owner of the policy lacks 
     an insurable interest in the insured; or
       (2) the applicant or prospective owner of the policy is 
     known, on the basis of police or court records, to have 
     committed an act of abuse against the proposed insured.

     SEC. 7. SUBROGATION WITHOUT CONSENT PROHIBITED.

       Subrogation of claims resulting from abuse is prohibited 
     without the informed consent of the subject of abuse.

     SEC. 8. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Federal Trade Commission.--The Federal Trade Commission 
     shall have the power to examine and investigate any insurer 
     to determine whether such insurer has been or is engaged in 
     any act or practice prohibited by this Act. If the Federal 
     Trade Commission determines an insurer has been or is engaged 
     in any act or practice prohibited by this Act, the Commission 
     may take action against such insurer by the issuance of a 
     cease and desist order as if the insurer was in violation of 
     section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Such cease and 
     desist order may include any individual relief warranted 
     under the circumstances, including temporary, preliminary, 
     and permanent injunctive and compensatory relief.
       (b) Private Cause of Action.--An applicant or insured who 
     believes that the applicant or insured has been adversely 
     affected by an act or practice of an insurer in violation of 
     this Act may maintain an action against the insurer in a 
     Federal or State court of original jurisdiction. Upon proof 
     of such conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, the court 
     may award appropriate relief, including temporary, 
     preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief and compensatory 
     and punitive damages, as well as the costs of suit and 
     reasonable fees for the aggrieved individual's attorneys and 
     expert witnesses. With respect to compensatory damages, the 
     aggrieved individual may elect, at any time prior to the 
     rendering of final judgment, to recover in lieu of actual 
     damages, an award of statutory damages in the amount of 
     $5,000 for each violation.

     SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall apply with respect to any action taken on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, except that 
     section 4 shall only apply to actions taken after the 
     expiration of 60 days after such date.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my 
colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, in introducing the Victims 
of Abuse Insurance Protection Act. I believe that every Senator in this 
Chamber should join in support of this important legislation.
  The Victims of Abuse Insurance Protection Act will prohibit 
discrimination by insurance companies against victims of domestic 
violence. This prohibition will apply to all lines of insurance 
including health, life, and homeowners.
  We are all proud of our efforts to increase our commitment to ending 
domestic violence. The Federal Government has dramatically increased 
resources to fighting this devastating public health threat. We have 
worked to strengthen enforcement of domestic violence laws and ensure 
that victims have access to the resources and assistance necessary to 
end the cycle of violence. However, the first step for most victims is 
reporting the violence and removing themselves from the violent 
situation. But, if a victim of domestic violence knows that by 
reporting and seeking help they have now accepted the fact that they 
will face discriminatory practices in when they try to secure any form 
of insurance, fewer victims will come forward. This is a chilling 
consequence that we cannot allow.
  Make no mistake about it, this is a real threat. I have been 
approached by an insurance agent in Washington State who told me that 
she cannot sell life insurance to victims of domestic violence. I also 
know of women who are unable to afford adequate homeowners insurance 
because of past domestic violence. This is an outrage and runs counter 
to all that is fair and decent. This is a classic example of blaming 
the victim.
  As a strong advocate of ending domestic violence, I cannot sit by and 
watch insurance companies deny victims insurance or impose such drastic 
cost barriers that few could overcome. I am appalled by this type of 
discrimination and extremely concerned about the impact it has on our 
efforts to combat domestic violence.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 468. A bill to continue the successful Federal role in developing 
a national intermodal surface transportation system, through programs 
that ensure the safe and efficient movement of people and goods, 
improve economic productivity, preserve the environment, and strengthen 
partnerships among all levels of the government and the private sector, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


 the national economic crossroad transportation efficiency act of 1997

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing, along with my 
colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan, the National Economic 
Crossroad Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997, referred to as NEXTEA. 
NEXTEA is the Clinton administration's legislative proposal for the 
reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act.
  I am introducing NEXTEA because it builds upon the landmark ISTEA 
legislation. It emphasizes environmental protection, system 
preservation, safety, and intermodalism. I would like to encourage my 
colleagues to take a serious look at this proposal.
  In addition, I will be a cosponsor of the ISTEA Reauthorization Act 
of 1997, a bill that has been written by Senators Moynihan, Lieberman, 
and Lautenberg which will be introduced in the near future. This 
proposal also builds upon the program structure and emphasis of the 
original ISTEA.
  Today's introduction does not mean that I endorse all the ideas in 
the administration's proposal. I am still in the process of reviewing 
the bill's details and plan to ask the administration questions about 
their provisions and the thinking behind some of their proposals.
  Of particular interest to my colleagues is whether my introduction of 
the administration's bill indicates my endorsement of the 
administration's formula for distributing funds among the States. It 
does not.
  The administration's formula relies to a great extent on the 
contributions paid into the highway trust fund by the individual 
States. I have serious concerns about setting national policy on the 
basis of where gasoline is purchased. The Federal Highway 
Administration's estimate of the highway trust fund contributions is 
based upon where gasoline is purchased, not even where it is used. Let 
me give a couple of examples of the problems I see with this misplaced 
focus.
  If you buy gas in Baltimore, MD, and drive to Woonsocket, RI, you 
will drive through the States of Delaware, New Jersey, New York, 
Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Maryland will be the only State that 
gets credit for this trip.
  Even if we were better able to estimate where gasoline is used, 
rather than just where it is purchased, setting national transportation 
policy on gasoline usage provides incentives that contradict policies 
of ISTEA such as environmental protection, intermodalism,

[[Page S2447]]

and efficiency. Under a gas tax-based formula, States and localities 
that use transit significantly or use less gasoline because of good 
planning are actually penalized for their good work.
  For example, programs or policies that encourage any of the following 
would be penalized: Shifting highway usage to other modes such as 
transit, greater use of carpooling and High Occupancy Vehicle [HOV] 
lanes, progressive land use planning, and the use of alternative fuels, 
or electric vehicles. In other words, ``no good deed, goes unpunished'' 
under such a national policy.
  Gasoline taxes are an efficient and low-cost way of raising revenue 
for transportation purposes. They should not, however, be attributed a 
policy importance that they do not deserve.
  Let me conclude my statement by encouraging all of the Members of the 
Senate to work together as we craft an ISTEA reauthorization proposal. 
I know we have some substantial disagreements that need to be resolved.
  As we move forward, we need to keep in mind the diversity and 
uniqueness of the country and all of its transportation needs. All of 
us must resist the temptation to set a national transportation policy 
based solely on our own region's particular demands. The demands of the 
Northeast are different from those of the South; the demands of the 
South are different from those of the West. And so on.
  We need to be cognizant of the population growth that has taken place 
in the South and Southwest and the strains that such growth has put on 
areas within that region. Many of the Western States, by contrast, with 
their low-population density and the great distances involved in 
travel, rely on highways as the major mode of transportation. We also 
need to acknowledge the uniqueness of the Northeast United States; its 
older infrastructure and acute congestion make it more dependent on 
nonhighway modes such as transit and Amtrak. Attempts to pass a new 
bill by forming alliances along regional lines will fail unless the 
bill recognizes the needs of all regions.
  I am hopeful that the ISTEA reauthorization will build upon the 
strong record of its predecessor. Admittedly, the transition from old 
policies and practices to those embodied in ISTEA has not always been 
easy, and more work needs to be done. However, we should not let these 
bumps in the road cause us to retreat from the progress we have made.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 
summary be printed in the Record.


                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

     Sec. 1. Short Title; Secretary Defined; Table of Contents
       This section designates the title of this legislation as 
     the ``National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1997,'' defines ``Secretary'' as the Secretary of 
     Transportation, and lists the table of contents for this 
     legislation.


                    TITLE I--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

     Sec. 1001. Short Title; Authorization of Appropriations
       This section designates title 1 of this bill as the 
     ``Surface Transportation Act of 1997.'' This section also 
     authorizes sums out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
     Mass Transit Account) for the National Highway System, the 
     Interstate maintenance program, the surface transportation 
     program, the congestion mitigation and air quality 
     improvement program, the highway bridge replacement and 
     rehabilitation program, the Federal Lands Highways program, 
     the infrastructure safety program, the integrated safety 
     fund, the national recreational trails program, and 
     university transportation centers.
       Authorizations for other highway trust-funded programs not 
     included in this section are included in the legislative 
     provisions authorizing the programs themselves, such as 
     Federal Highway Administration's research and technology, 
     Intelligent Transportation Systems, and motor carrier safety 
     programs.
       Paragraph (5) establishes a $17 million annual take-down 
     from HBRRP apportionments to fund the alteration of bridges 
     determined to be unreasonable obstructions to navigation 
     under the Truman Hobbs Bridge Act, 33 U.S.C. 511-524, and 
     requires the Secretary to transfer such sums (contract 
     authority), an amount of obligation authority equal to 100 
     percent of such contract authority, and the responsibility 
     for administering such sums to the United States Coast Guard. 
     These sums are to be administered in accordance with the 
     Truman Hobbs Bridge Act, rather than the HBRRP.
     Sec. 1002. Definitions
       This section revises the current definition of 
     ``operational improvement'' found in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) to 
     expressly include the installation, operation, or maintenance 
     of certain Intelligent Transportation Systems infrastructure 
     projects, and the installation or operation of communications 
     systems, roadway weather information and prediction systems, 
     and other such improvements designated by the Secretary that 
     enhance roadway safety during adverse weather. This language 
     expands the definition of operational improvement to include 
     operation and maintenance expenses for public ITS 
     infrastructure projects, since these activities are integral 
     to and inseparable from the installation of the associated 
     infrastructure. Operational improvement projects continue to 
     be eligible for National Highway System (NHS) and surface 
     transportation program (STP) apportionments under the revised 
     NHS and STP provisions of this Act.
     Sec. 1003. National Highway System
       Paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) amend 23 U.S.C. 103(i) to expand 
     NHS eligibility to make publicly owned intercity passenger 
     rail capital projects eligible for NHS funds under the same 
     criteria that currently apply to transit and non-NHS highway 
     projects under 23 U.S.C. 103(i)(3).
       Paragraph (a)(3) amends paragraph 103(i)(13) to expand NHS 
     funding eligibility to include natural habitat mitigation 
     under the same circumstances in which wetlands mitigation is 
     currently eligible for funding under this paragraph.
       Paragraph (a)(4) amends section 103 by adding two new items 
     to the list of projects generally eligible for NHS funding: 
     publicly owned intracity or intercity passenger rail or bus 
     terminals and publicly owned intermodal surface freight 
     transfer facilities, other than seaports and airports, where 
     such terminals and facilities are located at or adjacent to 
     the NHS or connections to the NHS; and infrastructure-based 
     Intelligent Transportation Systems capital improvements.
       This paragraph also adds to the list of eligible NHS 
     projects a paragraph applicable only to projects on the 
     Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands. The Federal-aid highway funds 
     provided to these territories are NHS funds, and therefore, 
     in amending the list of NHS-eligible projects under section 
     103, new paragraph 103(i)(16) permits these territories to 
     use their entire Federal-aid highway apportionments for any 
     STP-eligible project, any airport, and any seaport. This 
     greatly increases the territories' ability to craft the most 
     appropriate solution to their transportation needs, 
     regardless of transportation mode.
       Paragraph (a)(5) amends section 103 by adding a definition 
     of ``intermodal surface freight transfer facilities.'' Under 
     this definition, this term would include: any access road, 
     parking or staging area, ramp, loading or unloading area and 
     equipment, rail yard, track, and interest in land, publicly-
     owned rail access line to a seaport, and publicly owned 
     access road to a seaport, if they are used to effect the 
     transfer of freight.
       Because Congress has enacted legislation designating the 
     National Highway System, subsection (b) amends section 103 to 
     strike all out-of-date references to the States, local 
     officials, and the Secretary working cooperatively to develop 
     and submit to Congress a proposed National Highway System; 
     the requirement that Congress must enact a law designating 
     the National Highway System; the requirement for the 
     equitable allocation of highway mileage on the National 
     Highway System among the States; and the interim National 
     Highway System. Subsection (b) also makes several conforming 
     changes to section 103 to reflect the removal of these NHS 
     designation provisions from this section. Subsection (b) also 
     adds a new paragraph to subsection 103(b) to provide 
     congressional approval of the Department's submission of NHS 
     intermodal connectors.
     Sec. 1004. Apportionments
       Subsection (a) of this section revises 23 U.S.C. 104(a) to 
     more accurately reflect the program authorizations from which 
     the Secretary may deduct to fund the administration of the 
     Federal-aid highway program and surface transportation 
     research.
       Subsection (b) of this section amends 23 U.S.C. 104(b) by 
     revising the current formulas for the National Highway 
     System, congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
     program (CMAQ), and surface transportation program (STP) 
     apportionments.

                      NHS and STP Program Formulas

       Revised paragraph 104(b)(1) provides that NHS funds shall 
     be apportioned in each fiscal year, on or after October 1, 
     according to the following factors:
       75 percent according to each State's annual contributions 
     to the Highway Trust Fund (excluding the Mass Transit 
     Account) as a percent of the total annual contributions to 
     the Highway Trust Fund (excluding Mass Transit) by all States 
     (using the latest available data);
       15 percent according to each State's annual commercial 
     vehicle contributions to the Highway Trust Fund (excluding 
     the Mass Transit Account) as a percent of the total annual 
     commercial vehicle contributions to the Highway Trust Fund 
     (excluding Mass Transit) by all States (using the latest 
     available data). Commercial vehicle contributions to the 
     Highway Trust Fund include Federal diesel fuel taxes, the 
     Federal heavy vehicle use tax, the Federal truck and trailer 
     excise tax, and the Federal truck tire tax (using the latest 
     available data); and

[[Page S2448]]

       10 percent according to each State's public road mileage as 
     a percent of the total public road mileage for all States 
     (using the latest available data);
       With the guarantee that each State's annual apportionments 
     will equal no less than one-half of one percent (0.5 percent) 
     of the total annual apportioned NHS funds.
       Revised paragraph 104(b)(3) provides that STP funds shall 
     be apportioned according to the following factors:
       70 percent according to each State's annual contributions 
     to the Highway Trust Fund (excluding the Mass Transit 
     Account) as a percent of the total annual contributions to 
     the Highway Trust Fund (excluding Mass Transit) by all States 
     (using the latest available data); and
       30 percent according to each State's total population as a 
     percent of the total population of the United States (using 
     the latest available annual data);
       With the guarantee that each State's annual apportionments 
     will equal no less than one-half of one percent (0.5 percent) 
     of the total annual apportioned STP funds.

                              CMAQ Formula

       The existing CMAQ formula at 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(2) is based 
     on two factors: the population living in ozone nonattainment 
     areas within each State and the severity of that ozone 
     pollution. For increasing levels of severity, an additional 
     weighting factor is applied to the nonattainment area 
     population, rising from 1.0 for the least severe to 1.5 for 
     the most severe ozone air pollution. If an ozone 
     nonattainment area is also nonattainment for carbon monoxide, 
     it receives an additional weighting factor of 1.2. Under the 
     NHS Designation Act of 1995, CMAQ apportionment factors 
     (including the nonattainment area population and the severity 
     level, or ``classification'') were frozen as they were in 
     1994 to hold CMAQ funding levels even for States whose 
     nonattainment areas were redesignated to attainment and thus 
     dropped out of the apportionment formula.
       In subparagraphs 104(b)(2) (A) and (B), the basic formula 
     would remain the same, however additional funding would be 
     apportioned to States with particulate matter pollution and 
     additional consideration would be given to carbon monoxide 
     pollution. Also, a new weighting factor is employed for those 
     areas that have redesignated to attainment, or ``maintenance 
     areas''. They would be given a 1.0 weighting factor and all 
     other ozone nonattainment areas would be bumped up, ranging 
     from a factor of 1.1 to 1.5.
       In subparagraph 104(b)(2)(D), any additional area newly 
     designated as nonattainment as a result of a change in the 
     national ambient air quality standards that has submitted to 
     EPA a State implementation plan will have its population 
     included in the CMAQ apportionment formula with a weighting 
     factor of 1.0.
       To ensure that no State will receive less in CMAQ funding 
     as a result of a redistribution of funds caused by the new 
     standards, new subparagraph 104(b)(2)(E) provides such sums 
     as necessary from the surface transportation program before 
     STP funds are apportioned, to hold States harmless.

                  National Recreational Trails Program

       Subsection (c) of this section amends 23 U.S.C. 104(h) to 
     establish the formula to be used in apportioning funds 
     authorized to be appropriated for carrying out the National 
     Recreational Trails Program. In paragraph 104(h)(1), the 
     Secretary is directed to deduct, from the sums authorized to 
     carry out this program, an amount to cover the cost of 
     administering the Recreational Trails Program, the cost of 
     research under that program, and the cost of administering 
     the Federal Recreational Trails Advisory Committee. Paragraph 
     104(h)(1) also limits this amount to three percent or less of 
     the sums authorized. Paragraph 104(h)(2) delineates the 
     manner in which the Secretary is to apportion among the 
     States the remainder of the sums authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out the Recreational Trails Program. 
     Subparagraph 104(h)(2)(A) provides that the Secretary is to 
     apportion fifty percent of the remainder of the authorized 
     sums equally among the States eligible for funding under the 
     Recreational Trails Program. Subparagraph 104(h)(2)(B) 
     directs the Secretary to apportion the other fifty percent 
     among the eligible States in amounts proportionate to the 
     degree to which non-highway recreational fuel was used in 
     each such State during the preceding year.

                     Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge

       Subsection (d) of this section amends 23 U.S.C. 104(i) to 
     authorize funding for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, to 
     remain available until expended, for the rehabilitation of 
     the existing Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge and for the costs 
     related to construction of a new bridge. The design of the 
     new bridge will be based on the design selected by the 
     Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Coordination Committee, and 
     no actual construction contracts can be let until 
     ownership of the bridge is transferred to the Woodrow 
     Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority. The requirements for 
     design selection and transfer of ownership were 
     established by the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge 
     Authority Act of 1995. Construction of the new bridge 
     shall be administered in accordance with Federal 
     Acquisition Regulations.
       Subsection (e) of this section adds a new subsection, (k), 
     to section 104, recodifying current subsection 134(k) with 
     one significant revision. New subsection 104(k) establishes a 
     process for transferring and administering transit funds made 
     available for highway projects and highway funds made 
     available for transit projects. This subsection has been 
     revised to expressly provide for program-wide transfers of 
     funds and a like amount of obligation authority, where the 
     current subsection only provides for the project-by-projects 
     transfer of funds. This subsection also provides for program-
     wide transfers of highway and transit funds to Amtrak and 
     other eligible rail projects.


                      Audits of Highway Trust Fund

       Subsection (f) permits the Secretary to reimburse the 
     Department of Transportation's Inspector General for the cost 
     of conducting annual financial statement audits of the 
     Highway Trust Fund in accordance with the Chief Financial 
     Officers Act of 1990.


                           Equity Adjustments

       Subsections (g) and (h) of this legislation revise and 
     rename the current minimum allocation provision of title 23. 
     As revised, 23 U.S.C. 157(a)(1) provides that each State 
     shall receive at least 90 of its annual contributions to the 
     Highway Trust Fund (excluding the Mass Transit Account) as a 
     percent of total annual contributions to the Highway Trust 
     Fund (excluding Mass Transit) by all States (using the latest 
     available data.) Such adjustment shall only apply to funds 
     apportioned under the following programs: Interstate 
     maintenance, National Highway System, bridge, surface 
     transportation program/enhancements, congestion mitigation 
     and air quality improvement, metropolitan planning, and 
     infrastructure safety.
       Paragraph 157(a)(2) provides that for fiscal years 1998 
     through 2003, each State except Alaska shall receive at least 
     90 percent of the funds apportioned to that State in the 
     preceding fiscal year, including equity adjustments, but 
     excluding State percentage guarantee amounts. Alaska shall 
     receive at least 90 percent of its previous year's 
     apportionments in fiscal year 1998 and 100 percent of each 
     preceding year's apportionments for each of fiscal years 1999 
     through 2003.
     Sec. 1005. State Percentage Guarantee
       Similar to the hold harmless provision (subsection 1015(a)) 
     of ISTEA, this section establishes levels for annual 
     apportionments such that each State is guaranteed to receive 
     at least a certain percentage of total apportionments for 
     each year for the NHS, CMAQ, STP, IM, bridge, infrastructure 
     safety, both equity adjustments in section 157, and 
     Interstate reimbursement programs. Each State's STP 
     apportionment would be increased or decreased as necessary 
     each year to ensure that the total amount of specified 
     apportionments at least equals the percentage specified in 
     this section for every State.
     Sec. 1006. Project Approval and Oversight
       This section revises 23 U.S.C. 106, concerning Federal and 
     State responsibilities for projects funded under title 23.
       Paragraph (a)(1) of this section retitles section 106 from 
     ``Plans, Specifications, and Estimates'' to ``Project 
     Approval and Oversight'' to reflect the greater scope of this 
     section, as revised.
       Paragraph (a)(2) of this section redesignates subsection 
     106(e) and (f) as 106(f) and (g), respectively.
       Paragraph (a)(3) of this section strikes current 
     subsections 106(a), (b), (c), and (d) and replaces them with 
     five new subsections. While several of the provisions of 
     these four subsections have been incorporated into this 
     revised section, the 15 percent limit on estimates for 
     construction engineering, found in current subsection 106(c), 
     has not been included in this new section. Striking current 
     subsection 106(c) eliminates this outdated provision that has 
     been found to be flawed for several reasons. It is burdensome 
     to both the States and the Secretary to collect and maintain 
     the data necessary to monitor States' compliance with this 
     provision. Also, because this is only a limit on aggregate 
     (State-wide) construction engineering costs, it is 
     ineffective at controlling such costs on any individual 
     project. Also, this provision has been found to be 
     unnecessary because the benefits of limiting construction 
     engineering costs are uncertain, and an argument can be made 
     that such a limit could potentially affect the quality of the 
     project. Without this limit, States can be reimbursed for 
     their actual costs of construction engineering for each 
     project without having to compile the costs of construction 
     engineering in an annual accounting to see if the costs are, 
     on average, within the 15 percent limitation.
       New subsection 106(a) combines the current two-step process 
     for project approval and execution of a project agreement 
     into a process where both actions are taken concurrently, by 
     merging the provisions of current subsection 106(a) with 
     current subsection 110(a). Current subsection 106(a) provides 
     for the Secretary's approval of plans, specifications, and 
     estimates that a State submits for approval. The Secretary's 
     approval constitutes an obligation of the Federal government 
     to pay the Federal share of the cost of the project. Current 
     subsection 110(a) provides for the execution of a project 
     agreement that formalizes the conditions of the project 
     approval. Execution of the project agreement typically occurs 
     at a time later than the time of project approval (usually 
     after contract bids are received). In merging these current 
     provisions for project approval, execution of the project 
     agreement, and obligation of Federal funds into a single 
     process, this subsection would greatly simplify these 
     procedures.

[[Page S2449]]

       New subsection 106(b) combines the project agreement 
     provisions from current subsections 110(a) and (b) into one 
     subsection. This new subsection states that the project 
     agreement shall specify the State's pro rata share of project 
     costs and provides that the Secretary may rely on the 
     State's representations of arrangements or agreements made 
     by the State with local officials, where projects are to 
     be constructed at the expense of, or in cooperation with, 
     local agencies.
       New subsection 106(c) parallels current subsection 117(a) 
     and covers the conditions governing the Secretary's 
     responsibilities for oversight of projects funded under title 
     23, and how those responsibilities may be discharged. New 
     paragraph 106(c)(1) permits the Secretary to discharge to the 
     State the Secretary's responsibilities under title 23 for the 
     design, plans, specifications, estimates, contract awards, 
     and inspection of projects on the National Highway System 
     (NHS). The intent of this paragraph is to provide significant 
     flexibility to the States and the Secretary to discuss and 
     mutually determine the appropriate balance between State and 
     Federal (FHWA) oversight for Federal-aid highway projects, 
     taking into account overall needs and resources. A threshold 
     of responsibility for the States is ensured in that this 
     paragraph provides that the Secretary's responsibilities 
     under this provision shall be no greater than they are under 
     current law, unless differently agreed upon by the Secretary 
     and the State. The oversight agreement to be reached by the 
     Secretary and the State could be based on the scope and 
     complexity of NHS projects or other criteria determined 
     significant by a State. The agreement could also take into 
     account different levels of Federal oversight on NHS 
     projects: from a detailed review of all project actions to a 
     process review/product evaluation approach. Under new 
     paragraph 106(c)(2), the State must assume the Secretary's 
     responsibilities under title 23 for oversight of projects off 
     of the National Highway System.
       New subsection 106(d) is meant to be substantively the same 
     as current subsection 117(e). This language clarifies that, 
     in discharging responsibilities to the States under new 
     section 106, the Secretary is discharging only those title 23 
     responsibilities listed in this section. The Secretary may 
     not discharge any other Secretarial responsibilities under 
     any other Federal law, including sections 113 and 114 of 
     title 23, United States Code, the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
     the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisitions 
     Policies Act of 1970, and any Federal laws administered by 
     the Department of Labor.
       New subsection 106(e) is substantively identical to current 
     subsection 106(d); only an out-of-date reference to ``any 
     Federal-aid system'' has been updated. This subsection 
     provides that the Secretary may require that plans, 
     specifications, and estimates for proposed projects on any 
     Federal-aid highway be accompanied by a value engineering or 
     other cost reduction analysis.
       New subsection 106(f) provides that the Secretary shall 
     require a financial plan for any project with an estimated 
     total cost of $1 billion or more.
       Subsection (b) of this section amends title 23 by creating 
     a new subsection 109(r). New subsection 109(r) parallels a 
     provision in current paragraph 106(b)(3) governing safety 
     considerations for projects for which the State has assumed 
     the Secretary's responsibility for approving plans, 
     specifications, and estimates. This new subsection provides 
     that safety considerations for projects under this title may 
     be met by phase construction. In placing this sentence in 
     section 109, which sets forth Federal standards for all title 
     23-funded projects, this amendment permits States to use 
     phase construction to meet safety considerations on any title 
     23-funded project.
       Subsection (c) of this section revises the provision making 
     Davis-Bacon Act wage protections applicable to highway 
     construction projects so that the scope of this provision is 
     commensurate with the scope of project eligibility under 
     title 23. That is, where the current subsection 113(a) 
     applies the Davis-Bacon Act's prevailing wage requirement to 
     laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or 
     subcontractors on the construction work performed on highway 
     projects, this revised language would extend these wage 
     protections to the same workers employed on any project 
     eligible for funding under title 23--not simply highway 
     construction projects. This subsection does not apply to 
     projects on local roads and rural minor collectors and on 
     transportation enhancement and recreational trails programs 
     not within a Federal-aid highway right-of-way or otherwise 
     linked based on proximity or impact to a Federal-aid highway.
       Subsection (d) of this section strikes current sections 110 
     and 117 because these sections have been incorporated into 
     the new section 106. Subsection also strikes section 105, 
     because this section is out-of-date, having been superseded 
     in by the State transportation improvement program 
     requirements of section 135, which were added by ISTEA.
       Subsection (e) of this section makes a conforming amendment 
     to the analysis at the start of chapter 1 of title 23 to 
     reflect the new title of section 106 and to remove the items 
     relating to sections 110 and 117, which have been stricken.
     Sec. 1007. Real Property Acquisition and Corridor 
         Preservation
       The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991 (ISTEA) placed increased emphasis on sound 
     transportation planning, including the preservation of 
     transportation corridors for future use. Ongoing efforts by 
     State and local officials to preserve such corridors can be 
     hampered when development pressures create adverse impacts on 
     affected property owners. Development, when not coordinated 
     with transportation needs, can often foreclose options 
     available to transportation officials to avoid 
     environmentally sensitive sites. Often in such cases, early 
     action and acquisition is the only way to assure that lands 
     can be obtained and reserved for future use.
       The changes made by this section expand or modify the 
     flexibility provided to local and State governments to take 
     prudent public action to compete for land resources and 
     implement corridor preservation programs adopted through the 
     public planning process.
       Sections 108 and 323 of 23 U.S.C. are modified to remove 
     restrictive language and out-dated programs, revise language, 
     and add opportunities for States and local governments to 
     utilize early acquisition when necessary while retaining 
     maximum flexibility to leverage the use of Federal funds.
       Section 108 is retitled to reflect its applicability to 
     general corridor preservation programs as well as to 
     identified project right-of-way needs.
       Subsection 108(a) is revised to conform with the new title 
     for this section and to provide that property acquisition can 
     be conducted in support of federally assisted transportation 
     improvements and is not limited to Federal-aid highways. 
     States can use any apportioned funds for land acquisition, 
     but the action must be supported by their approved 
     transportation program. The term ``highway department'' is 
     removed from the section to reflect the changed 
     organizational environment and the move to multi-modal 
     planning processes.
       Subsection 108(c) is revised to provide an expiration and 
     close-out period for obligations already authorized from the 
     right-of-way revolving fund. No allocations of funds have 
     been made during the last two years, and the fund is no 
     longer considered necessary to support State acquisition 
     activities. Subsection 108(c), as revised, provides that 
     credits based on conversion or reimbursements are to be 
     applied to the Highway Trust Fund rather than the revolving 
     fund.
       Section 323 is amended to add flexibility and to provide an 
     alternative means of leveraging Federal funds apportioned to 
     each State by providing a credit based on the value of 
     publicly owned lands incorporated within a federally funded 
     project. This credit applies not only to property that has 
     been donated to the State or local government, but also other 
     property that is owned by the State or local government, so 
     long as at the time such property was acquired there was no 
     intent to avoid requirements of the Uniform Relocation 
     Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act or any 
     other Federal law. This provision is consistent with the 
     credits already permitted for donated real property and 
     services. Along with other financing options provided under 
     ISTEA (including provisions retained in 23 U.S.C. 108 
     regarding reimbursement for property acquired in advance of 
     Federal authorizations and innovative options to establish 
     State-based funds to support early acquisitions), the 
     provisions added by this section expand the choices available 
     to State and local governments in fashioning financial 
     strategies to best serve their transportation objectives.
     Sec. 1008. Proceeds from the Sale or Lease of Real Property
       Current section 156 of title 23, United States Code, 
     requires States to charge fair market value for the use of 
     airspace acquired in connection with a federally funded 
     project. This section also authorizes States to retain the 
     Federal share of net income from the sale, use, or lease of 
     this airspace as long as that same amount was used by the 
     State for projects eligible for funding under title 23.
       This section revises 23 U.S.C. 156 to expand these 
     principles regarding airspace income to apply to the net 
     income generated by a State's lease, sale, or other use of 
     all real property acquired with Federal financial assistance. 
     This reduces administrative overhead relating to property 
     management practices and simplifies such practices by 
     applying the same standard to all real property interests 
     that are acquired with Federal-aid highway funds and 
     requiring that the Federal share of any proceeds be reapplied 
     within the State to other projects eligible for funding under 
     title 23.
     Sec. 1009. Interstate Maintenance Program
       Subsection (a) strikes subsections 109(m) and 119(b) of 
     title 23, United States Code, to eliminate both the 
     requirement for the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
     Interstate maintenance guidelines and the requirement for 
     States to annually certify that they have a maintenance 
     program in place that is in accordance with those guidelines. 
     Subsection (a) also strikes subsection 119(e) of such title 
     to eliminate the separate Interstate System preventive 
     maintenance eligibility standard. Accordingly, Interstate 
     System preventive maintenance eligibility would be determined 
     in accordance with the general preventive maintenance 
     provision of subsection 116(d).
       Subsection (b) amends subsection 119(c), now 119(b), to 
     expand IM eligibility to include the reconstruction of 
     Interstate highways and infrastructure-based ITS capital 
     improvements to the extent that they improve the performance 
     of the Interstate.

[[Page S2450]]

       Subsection (c) revises subsection 119(f), now 119(d), to 
     require a State that seeks to transfer any of its IM funds to 
     its NHS or STP apportionments to annually certify that it is 
     adequately maintaining its Interstate pavement and bridges 
     and that the IM funds it seeks to transfer are in excess of 
     its needs for its Interstate pavement and bridges.
       Subsection (d) technically amends subsection 119(a) to 
     strike an out-of-date reference to subsection 119(e).
     Sec. 1010. Maintenance
       Subsection (a) amends subsection 116(a) of title 23, United 
     States Code, to revise an out-of-date reference to a Federal-
     aid highway system and to clarify when a State's duty to 
     maintain shall cease.
       Subsection (b) adds a requirement to subsection 116(a) that 
     each State annually certify that it is maintaining its 
     Federal-aid highway projects.
       Subsection (c) makes several technical amendments to 
     subsections 116(b) and (c).
     Sec. 1011. Interstate 4R Discretionary Program
       This section amends 23 U.S.C. 118(c) to reauthorize the 
     current Interstate 4R discretionary program at a level of $45 
     million per year for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003. 
     The eligibility, priority, and funds availability criteria 
     for this program are unchanged from current law.
       This section also strikes paragraph 118(c)(1) to eliminate 
     an out-of-date provision. Paragraph 118(c)(1) authorized 
     funding for a set aside from Interstate construction 
     apportionments for construction projects, however, funds were 
     not authorized for the Interstate construction program after 
     fiscal year 1995.
     Sec. 1012. Emergency Relief Program
       Subsection (a) of this section amends 23 U.S.C. 120(e) to 
     reduce the Federal share payable on emergency relief projects 
     to 75 percent of the cost of each such project. This 
     amendment brings the Federal share requirement of the FHWA's 
     emergency relief program in line with the government-wide 
     emergency relief proposal advanced by the President. 
     Subsection (a) also amends 23 U.S.C. 120(e) to shorten the 
     time period in which States receive a 100 percent Federal 
     share of emergency relief funds to the first 30 days after a 
     disaster occurrence. ER funds can be used for eligible 
     emergency repairs done to restore essential highway traffic, 
     minimize the extent of damage, or protect the remaining 
     facility. The 100 percent Federal share requirement for 
     emergency relief projects on Federal lands and U.S. 
     territories is unchanged. Paragraph (a)(1) of this section 
     technically amends 23 U.S.C. 120 to replace an outdated 
     reference to Federal-aid highway systems.
       Paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) strike 23 U.S.C. 125(a), 
     redesignate subsections 125(b), (c), and (d) as 125(d), (e), 
     and (f), respectively, and reorganize subsection 125(a), 
     dividing the subsection by subject matter, removing out-of-
     date language concerning emergency relief authorizations for 
     prior years, and providing that emergency relief funds shall 
     be available until expended.
       Paragraph (b)(4) makes conforming amendments to 125(d), as 
     so redesignated, to conform internal section references to 
     the changes made by paragraph (b)(2).
       Paragraph (b)(5) technically corrects 125(e), as so 
     redesignated, to correct a reference to Federal-aid highways.
     Sec. 1013. Toll Roads, Bridges, Tunnels, and Ferries
       Subsection (a) of this section amends paragraph 129(a)(1) 
     of title 23, United States Code, to remove the prohibitions 
     against Federal participation in the initial construction of 
     a toll highway, bridge, or tunnel on the Interstate System or 
     in the reconstruction of a toll-free Interstate highway and 
     its conversion to a toll facility. Such initial Interstate 
     construction or Interstate reconstruction/conversion would be 
     eligible for Federal-aid highway funds to the same extent and 
     under the same terms (including limitations on the use of 
     toll revenues) as such projects on non-Interstate highways, 
     bridges, and tunnels currently are eligible under section 129 
     of such title. For those States that choose to toll 
     Interstate routes under this provision, the Department 
     encourages the use of electronic tolling. Electronic tolling 
     shortens delays at toll facilities, thereby shortening trip 
     times and reducing vehicle emissions.
       Subsection (b) of this section eliminates an out-of-date 
     subsection (129(d)) which established a tolling pilot program 
     that has accomplished its intended purpose. However, pilot 
     toll agreements that were executed under subsection 129(k) 
     are still valid unless they were modified under 23 U.S.C. 
     129(a)(6).
     Sec. 1014. Surface Transportation Program
       Subsection (a) amends subsection 133(a) of title 23, United 
     States Code, to reflect that the surface transportation 
     program provided for under this section has already been 
     established.
       Subsection (b) of this section amends paragraph 133(b)(2) 
     to clarify that the eligibility for privately owned vehicles 
     and facilities used to provide intercity passenger service by 
     bus or rail under the STP program parallels the eligibility 
     of such vehicles and facilities under 49 U.S.C. 5302(a)(1), 
     as revised by this Act. Subsection (b) also amends 133(b) to 
     expand STP eligibility regarding safety projects to include 
     publicly owned rail safety infrastructure improvements and 
     programs and non-infrastructure highway safety improvements. 
     Subsection (b) also amends paragraph 133(b)(3) to make clear 
     that STP funds may be used to fund the modification of 
     existing public sidewalks to comply with the requirements of 
     the Americans with Disabilities Act. Subsection (b) also 
     codifies a provision governing transportation enhancements 
     eligibility that has been set forth in agency guidance: a 
     transportation enhancements activity must have a direct link 
     to surface transportation. Subsection (b) also expands STP 
     funding eligibility to include natural habitat mitigation 
     under the same circumstances in which wetlands mitigation is 
     currently eligible for funding under 133(b). Subsection (b) 
     also amends subsection 133(b) to expand STP eligibility to 
     include two new categories of projects: publicly owned 
     intercity passenger and freight rail infrastructure and rail 
     passenger vehicles.
       Subsection (c) amends section 133 to eliminate the safety 
     set-aside from the STP program and makes conforming 
     amendments to section 133. Highway safety programs will be 
     funded by a direct authorization, rather than as a set-aside 
     of the surface transportation program.
       Subsection (d) amends paragraph 133(e)(2) to scale back the 
     current quarterly, project-by-project State certification and 
     notification requirements to annual, program-wide approval of 
     each State's project agreement. Administrative procedures 
     would be established to support the obligation by identifying 
     the projects to be advanced during the period.
       Subsection (e) strikes the second sentence in paragraph 
     133(e)(3) which required that payments made by the Secretary 
     to the States under section 133 could not exceed the Federal 
     share of costs incurred as of the date the State requested 
     payments.
       Subsection (f) revises subsection 133(f) regarding the 
     allocation of obligation authority to urbanized areas to 
     extend this provision through the life of the 
     reauthorization. Current FHWA guidance provides that a State 
     is deemed to have complied with this provision if the target 
     amounts of obligation authority for individual areas have 
     been obligated or if the State and MPO agree and document 
     that the obligation authority was made available, but the 
     area was unwilling or unable to use it. Revised subsection 
     133(f) also requires that each State and MPO ensure the fair 
     and equitable treatment under 133(f)(1) of central cities of 
     over 200,000 in population.
     Sec. 1015. Metropolitan Planning
     Subsection (a). General Requirements
       Subsection 134(a) of title 23, United States Code, sets 
     forth the general bases, goals, and functions of the 
     metropolitan planning process established under this section. 
     This subsection has been revised to emphasize system 
     management and operation (excluding maintenance) to 
     underscore the need to support existing transportation 
     systems and implementation of Intelligent Transportation 
     Systems. A reference to locally determined fair and 
     equitable treatment of all parts of the metropolitan 
     planning area within the planning process is added to 
     emphasize regional problem solving and resource 
     distribution.
     Subsection (b). Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)
       Paragraph (1) establishes the process for designation 
     (creation) of metropolitan planning organizations. This 
     paragraph retains the current method for designation of MPOs 
     by agreement of the Governor and units of general purpose 
     local government, but requires that such local governments 
     represent 51 percent of the affected population (under 
     current law, such governments must represent 75 percent of 
     the affected population). This paragraph retains the 
     provision of current law that an MPO can only be designated 
     under this arrangement if the central city agrees to the 
     proposal. As revised, this paragraph also permits 
     designation, consistent with this provision, under procedures 
     established by State law. Under current paragraph 134(b)(1), 
     State or local law can govern.
       Paragraph (2) replaces current paragraph 134(b)(5) and 
     establishes the process for redesignation of existing 
     metropolitan planning organizations. This paragraph retains 
     the current method for redesignation of MPOs by agreement of 
     the Governor and units of general purpose local government, 
     but requires that such local governments represent 51 percent 
     of the affected population (under current law, such 
     governments must represent 75 percent of the affected 
     population). This paragraph retains the provision of current 
     law that an MPO can only be redesignated if the central city 
     agrees to the proposal. This paragraph also permits 
     redesignation, consistent with this provision, under 
     procedures established by State law.
       The special provisions for Los Angeles and Chicago to 
     request redesignation have been removed because they have not 
     been used by either area.
       Paragraph (3) replaces current paragraph 134(b)(6) and 
     establishes the process for designating multiple metropolitan 
     planning organizations in a single metropolitan planning 
     area. Under current law, the Governor alone is responsible 
     for determining whether more than one MPO is needed. As 
     revised, this paragraph includes local officials acting 
     through the MPO and the Secretary of Transportation as key 
     participants in determining whether to create multiple 
     metropolitan planning organizations to serve a single 
     metropolitan area.
       Paragraph (4) replaces current paragraph 134(b)(2). This 
     paragraph identifies the membership of the policy boards of 
     metropolitan

[[Page S2451]]

     planning organizations serving areas designated as 
     transportation management areas. In this paragraph, specific 
     reference is made to the policy board of the MPO, rather than 
     the more general reference to the MPO, as provided in current 
     law, to make clear that these membership requirements are 
     meant to apply to the policy boards only.
       The current paragraph 134(b)(4) ``grandfathering'' all MPO 
     structures existing and not redesignated after December 18, 
     1991, has been deleted to give State and local officials more 
     flexibility in structuring their MPOs.
       Paragraph (5) replaces current subparagraphs 134(b)(3)(A) 
     and (B). This paragraph provides that nothing in subsection 
     134(b) shall interfere with a public agency's authority, 
     under State law, to develop plans and programs for adoption 
     by an MPO and to develop long range capital plans, coordinate 
     transit services and projects, and carry out other activities 
     under State law. No substantive revisions have been made to 
     this language.
     Subsection (c). Metropolitan Planning Area Boundaries
       This subsection establishes the basis for designating 
     metropolitan planning area boundaries. Such boundaries 
     include the existing urbanized area, the contiguous area 
     expected to become urbanized in the next 20 years, and any 
     areas in nonattainment for ozone, carbon monoxide or 
     particulate matter. This subsection differs from current 
     subsection 134(c) in several ways. It freezes the connection 
     between nonattainment areas and metropolitan planning areas 
     to the metropolitan planning area boundaries in existence as 
     of September 30, 1996, but allows the Governor and the MPO, 
     upon agreement, to expand the boundaries of a metropolitan 
     planning area. This paragraph also adds nonattainment areas 
     for particulate matter to this list of nonattainment areas to 
     be included in the boundaries of a metropolitan planning 
     area. Finally, this paragraph is revised to provide that for 
     urbanized areas designated after September 30, 1996, the 
     Governor and units of general purpose government must 
     establish metropolitan planning area boundaries that 
     appropriately address current areas in nonattainment for 
     ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter.
     Subsection (d). Coordination in Multi-State Areas
       Paragraph (1) requires the Secretary to encourage the 
     coordination of metropolitan planning activities in 
     metropolitan planning areas divided by State boundaries and 
     served by multiple MPOs. Clarifying editorial changes have 
     been made.
       Paragraph (2) authorizes two or more States to enter into a 
     compact to cooperate in implementing the planning activities 
     authorized under this section. This provision is unchanged 
     from current law.
     Subsection (e). Coordination of MPOs
       This subsection requires coordination between two or more 
     metropolitan planning organizations with authority within a 
     metropolitan planning area or a nonattainment area. This 
     subsection has been revised to include areas that are in 
     nonattainment for particulate matter. In addition, it 
     requires each MPO to coordinate their plans and programs 
     under this section with each other, where the current 
     provision requires that they consult with each other.
     Subsection (f). Scope of the Planning Process
       This subsection identifies the issues to be considered in 
     the planning process when developing plans and programs. This 
     subsection has been revised to create seven broad clusters 
     of issues, where current subsection 134(f) includes 16 
     specific factors. These seven clusters encompass the 16 
     factors included in current law, but are meant to give 
     planning officials greater flexibility, e.g., landside 
     port access planning could be conducted within the 
     metropolitan planning process under 134(f)(1)(E). The use 
     of these clusters must be reflected in their application 
     in transportation decisionmaking. These same clusters, 
     with minor modifications, are used in the Statewide 
     planning provision of 23 U.S.C. 135 for consistency and 
     clarity.
     Subsection (g). Development of Transportation Plan
       This subsection has been renamed, from ``Development of 
     Long-Range Plan'' to ``Development of Transportation Plan'' 
     to emphasize the comprehensive, multi-modal transportation 
     focus of the plan, rather than its time frame.
       Paragraph (1) sets forth the requirement for a 
     transportation plan in each metropolitan area.
       Paragraph (2) lists the minimum contents of the plan. This 
     paragraph eliminates the requirement that the plan be in a 
     form determined by the Secretary. These subparagraphs also 
     require consideration of strategies to address system 
     preservation and efficiency of use. The focus of this plan 
     has been broadened to emphasize all transportation 
     investments, including system management and operation 
     (excluding maintenance) and to eliminate the distinction 
     between transit systems and highways. In addition, the 
     reference to vehicular congestion has been modified.
       Subparagraph (C) of this paragraph sets forth the 
     requirement for a financial plan based on resources that are 
     available or that can reasonably be made available. This 
     financial planning language has been slightly revised for 
     clarity. In addition, a new requirement for a cooperative 
     process, involving the MPO, public transit agency, and the 
     State, for estimating the resources available to support 
     implementation of a plan has been included.
       Current subparagraph (D) requiring the plan to list 
     proposed transportation enhancement activities has been 
     eliminated as unnecessary because all federally supported 
     improvements are already required to be in a plan and 
     program.
       Paragraph (3) is retitled and modified to revise the 
     coordination between transportation planning and air quality 
     agencies and to add coordination with other planning 
     processes. Subparagraph (A) requires that MPOs coordinate 
     with State air quality agencies in metropolitan areas that 
     are in nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide. 
     Subparagraph (A) also is revised to include areas in 
     nonattainment for particulate matter. Current paragraph (3) 
     requires State air quality agencies and MPOs to coordinate 
     the development of the long-range (now transportation) plan 
     with the development of transportation control measures of 
     the State implementation plan. The revised subparagraph 
     requires State air quality agencies and MPOs to ensure 
     cooperation in the development of air quality and 
     transportation plans. This strengthens the reciprocal 
     relationship between the planning processes beyond just the 
     development of transportation control measures. Subparagraph 
     (B) is added to support the relationship in metropolitan 
     areas between related planning activities and processes. 
     Development of transportation plans is expected to account 
     for related investments and program strategies developed 
     through other planning activities, e.g., economic development 
     and revitalization. Such coordination would ensure that 
     transportation projects and programs would consider, for 
     example, the needs of low income communities so that they 
     would be effectively integrated with transportation 
     investments.
       Paragraph (4) requires that each MPO provide an opportunity 
     for public participation and involvement in the planning 
     process. This paragraph is revised to add freight shippers to 
     the list of interested parties to be provided a reasonable 
     opportunity to comment on the transportation plan.
       Paragraph (5) requires that each MPO publish or otherwise 
     make readily available to the public its transportation plan. 
     This provision is unchanged from current law.
     Subsection (h). Metropolitan Transportation Improvement 
         Program
       Paragraph (1) of this subsection establishes the 
     requirement for each MPO to develop, in cooperation with the 
     State and affected public transit operators, a transportation 
     improvement program for its metropolitan area. This program 
     must be updated every two years, and interested parties must 
     be provided with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the 
     proposed program. This paragraph is revised to add freight 
     shippers to the list of interested parties.
       Paragraph (2), retitled content, requires the 
     transportation improvement program to include a list of 
     federally funded surface transportation projects and 
     strategies to be carried out within the first 3 years of the 
     program. This paragraph also requires the program to include 
     a financial plan demonstrating how the program can be 
     implemented, indicating the resources that are reasonably 
     expected to be available to carry out the program and any 
     innovative finance techniques needed. This paragraph has been 
     revised to require the MPO, public transit agency, and State 
     to cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be 
     available to support program implementation.
       Paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) have been reordered from 
     previous statutory language for clarity.
       Paragraph (3), included projects, replaces paragraph 
     (h)(5). [Current paragraph (h)(4), requiring the Secretary to 
     initiate a rulemaking within 6 months of enactment of ISTEA 
     on conforming NEPA review of transit projects with NEPA 
     review of highway projects has been deleted because this 
     requirement has already been met.] Paragraph (4) provides 
     that only those projects or identified project phases that 
     can be reasonably anticipated to be fully funded may be 
     included in a transportation improvement program.
       Paragraph (4), notice and comment, replaces current 
     paragraph (h)(6). This paragraph requires MPOs to provide the 
     public and interested parties with reasonable notice of and 
     an opportunity to comment on a proposed transportation 
     improvement program before approving the program.
       This paragraph has been revised to require the MPO to 
     cooperate with the State and public transit operators in 
     implementing this requirement.
       Paragraph (5), project selection, clarifies the distinction 
     between project selection and TIP development as established 
     in ISTEA. TIP development is a cooperative process involving 
     the MPO, State and transit operators. Project selection, as 
     referred to in ISTEA, is the process for advancing projects 
     as scheduled in the TIP or moving projects between years 
     within an approved TIP. This language clarifies that project 
     selection is exercised once a TIP has been approved and does 
     not apply to TIP development. It may lead in some cases to 
     TIP amendments where significant changes have occurred after 
     TIP approval.
     Subsection (i). Transportation Management Areas (TMAs)
       This subsection requires the Secretary to designate a 
     special category of metropolitan

[[Page S2452]]

     planning areas--those urbanized areas over 200,000 in 
     population--as transportation management areas and it sets 
     forth a special MPO structure and procedures for the planning 
     process serving those areas.
       Paragraph (1) drops the current reference to inclusion of 
     the Lake Tahoe Basin, upon request, as a transportation 
     management area because it is ineffective. The area has not 
     benefitted from this provision, which allowed the area to be 
     designated as a transportation management area but did not 
     give it MPO status or make it eligible for planning funds.
       Paragraph (2) requires the planning process in TMAs to be 
     based on continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive planning. 
     This provision is unchanged from current law.
       Paragraph (3) requires the creation of a congestion 
     management system within a TMA. The language requiring the 
     Secretary to establish a phase-in schedule for this 
     requirement is deleted because this requirement has been 
     implemented.
       Paragraph (4) establishes the process for selecting 
     projects for implementation to be carried out within the 
     boundaries of a TMA and with Federal financial participation.
       Paragraph (5) establishes a process for triennial Federal 
     review of the metropolitan planning process in transportation 
     management areas and includes sanctions for failure to meet 
     Federal certification standards. The review process is in 
     addition to approval of the STIP and Unified Planning Work 
     program and Federal conformity determinations. FHWA and FTA 
     actions, when coupled together, can be strategically used to 
     induce improved planning by leveraging the consequences of 
     each action.
       Where current paragraph (5) provides for withholding 20 
     percent of only surface transportation program apportionments 
     attributed to a metropolitan area if it remains uncertified, 
     this revised paragraph provides that the Secretary may 
     withhold all or any part of the apportioned funds attributed 
     to the TMA under titles 23 and 49, United States Code, as the 
     Secretary deems appropriate. Based on this authority, the 
     Secretary has multiple options to apply sanctions to reflect 
     the severity of deficiencies in the planning process under 
     review. Further, this penalty can be applied to reinforce the 
     other approval actions mentioned in the preceding paragraph. 
     The withheld apportionments must be restored to the 
     metropolitan area once it is certified by the Secretary under 
     this paragraph.
     Subsection (j). Abbreviated Plans and Programs for Certain 
         Areas
       This subsection enables the Secretary to permit 
     metropolitan areas (other than transportation management 
     areas) to develop an abbreviated metropolitan transportation 
     plan and program that the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate to achieve the purposes of this section. MPOs 
     that contain nonattainment areas cannot utilize this 
     provision. This subsection is substantially unchanged from 
     current law.
     Subsection (k). Additional Requirements for Certain 
         Nonattainment Areas
       Previous subsection (k) on transfer of funds has been moved 
     to 23 U.S.C. 104. Previous subsection (l) is redesignated as 
     (k).
       This subsection requires single occupant vehicle (SOV) 
     capacity-increasing projects in TMAs classified as 
     nonattainment to be part of an approved congestion management 
     system before they may be federally funded. In addition, this 
     subsection has been revised to include areas that are in 
     nonattainment for particulate matter.
     Subsection (l). Limitation on Statutory Construction
       Previous subsection (m) is redesignated as (l).
       Subsection (l), as so redesignated, provides that nothing 
     in 23 U.S.C. 134 shall be construed to confer on an MPO the 
     authority to impose legal requirements on any transportation 
     facility, provider, or project not eligible under title 23 or 
     chapter 53 of title 49. This subsection would be amended to 
     correct the reference to the restatement of the Federal 
     Transit Act as positive law in chapter 53 of title 49, United 
     States Code.
     Subsection (m). Funding
       Previous subsection (n) is redesignated as (m).
       The source of federal funds to support metropolitan 
     transportation planning is identified. Additionally, this 
     section permits MPOs to make available to the State (for 
     funding Statewide planning under 23 U.S.C. 135) any funds set 
     aside under 23 U.S.C. 104(f) for metropolitan planning that 
     are not used to carry out such planning.
     Sec. 1016. Statewide Planning
     Subsection (a). General Requirements
       Subsection 135(a) of title 23, United States Code, sets 
     forth the general bases, goals, and functions of the 
     Statewide planning process established under this section. 
     This subsection has been revised to emphasize system 
     management and operation (excluding maintenance) 
     to underscore the need to support existing transportation 
     systems and implementation of Intelligent Transportation 
     Systems. A reference to fair and equitable treatment 
     within the planning process for all areas of the State has 
     been added.
     Subsection (b). Scope of the Planning Process
       This subsection replaces current subsections 135(b), (c), 
     and (d). This subsection identifies issues to be considered 
     in the Statewide planning process. This subsection lists 
     seven broad clusters of issues to be considered. These 
     clusters encompass the 20 factors included in current 
     subsection 135(c) but are meant to give planning officials 
     greater flexibility, e.g., landside port access planning 
     could be conducted within the metropolitan planning process 
     under 135(b)(1)(E). The same clusters, with minor 
     modifications, are used in the metropolitan planning 
     provision. This subsection is also revised to require the 
     State to cooperatively determine with its planning partners 
     how these considerations are translated into State goals and 
     objectives. Finally, this subsection retains, with clarifying 
     edits, the requirements to coordinate Statewide planning with 
     metropolitan planning and for Statewide planning to consider 
     the concerns of Indian tribal governments and Federal lands 
     agencies. An addition is made to address the concerns of 
     elected local officials with jurisdiction over transportation 
     in non-metropolitan areas. An addition also is made to add 
     coordination with other planning processes. Development of 
     transportation plans is expected to account for related 
     investments and program strategies developed through other 
     planning activities, e.g., economic development and 
     revitalization. Such coordination would ensure that 
     transportation projects and programs would consider, for 
     example, the needs of low income communities so that they 
     would be effectively integrated with transportation 
     investments.
     Subsection (c). Transportation Plan
       This subsection replaces current subsection 135(e) and has 
     been renamed, from ``Long-Range Plan'' to ``Transportation 
     Plan'' to emphasize the comprehensive, multi-modal 
     transportation focus of this plan, rather than its time 
     frame. This subsection requires States to develop 
     transportation plans for all areas of the State. This 
     subsection has been revised to clarify that the Statewide 
     plan should cover at least a 20-year forecast period and that 
     it should provide for the development of operations and 
     management strategies, in addition to capital. This 
     subsection also is revised to call for consultation between 
     the State and local transportation officials outside of 
     metropolitan area boundaries when developing the Statewide 
     plan for such non-metropolitan areas. This subsection also 
     adds freight shippers to the list of interested parties to 
     which the State must provide a reasonable opportunity to 
     comment on the proposed plan.
     Subsection (d). State Transportation Improvement Program
       This subsection replaces current subsection 135(f) and has 
     been renamed from ``Transportation Improvement Program'' to 
     ``Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.''
       Paragraph (1) of this subsection requires States to develop 
     transportation improvement programs for all areas of the 
     State. This subsection is also revised to call for 
     consultation between the State and local transportation 
     officials outside of metropolitan area boundaries when 
     developing the program for such non-metropolitan areas. This 
     section also adds freight shippers to the list of interested 
     parties to which the State must provide a reasonable 
     opportunity to comment on the proposed program.
       Paragraph (2) requires the transportation improvement 
     program to identify all federally funded surface 
     transportation projects. This paragraph has also been revised 
     to provide that the projects included in the Statewide 
     program for metropolitan areas must be identical to the 
     approved metropolitan transportation improvement program .
       Paragraph (3) provides for the selection of projects for 
     areas less than 50,000 in population. TIP development is a 
     cooperative process involving the MPO, State and transit 
     operators. Project selection, as referred to in ISTEA, is the 
     process for advancing projects as scheduled in the TIP or 
     moving projects between years within an approved TIP. The 
     proposed language clarifies that project selection is 
     exercised once a TIP has been approved and does not apply to 
     TIP development. It may lead in some cases to TIP amendments 
     where significant changes have occurred after TIP approval. 
     In the case of areas under 50,000 population the State must 
     consult with affected local officials.
       Paragraph (4) requires the Secretary to biennially review 
     and approve States' transportation improvement programs. This 
     language is revised to direct the Secretary, before approving 
     a STIP, to find that it is consistent or substantially 
     consistent with this section and 23 U.S.C. 134.
     Subsection (e). Funding
       This subsection provides that funds made available under 23 
     U.S.C. 329(a) shall be available to carry out the 
     requirements of this section. This subsection is revised to 
     also make funds set aside under 49 U.S.C. 5313(b) available 
     to carry out these requirements.
       Current subsection 135(h), concerning treatment of State 
     laws pertaining to congestion management systems, has been 
     deleted because it is no longer applicable.
     Sec. 1017. Research, Training, and Employment Opportunities
     Subsection (a) Training
       Paragraph (a)(1) The amendment made by this paragraph 
     encourages a State to establish a certain number of training 
     slots on its Federal-aid contracts for welfare recipients 
     residing in the State to help meet its annual goal for 
     placing recipients in work activities, as required by the 
     ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996'' (the ``Welfare Reform Act''). Under the

[[Page S2453]]

     Welfare Reform Act, a State must demonstrate annually that it 
     has moved a certain percentage of families into ``work 
     activities.'' Work activities, with certain limitations, 
     include participation in job training programs. Failure to 
     meet these percentages will result in a reduction in the 
     block grant that the State is entitled to receive. The 
     Welfare Reform Act also imposes a maximum amount of time for 
     which individuals can stay on public assistance.
       Subsection 140(a) of title 23, United States Code, 
     currently provides that the Secretary shall, where necessary 
     to ensure equal employment opportunity, require certification 
     by any State recipient that the state has in existence an 
     apprenticeship or skill improvement program. Pursuant to 
     this authority, FHWA issued regulations requiring States 
     to set goals for a minimum number of training slots to be 
     included on Federal-aid highway contracts (23 CFR Sec. 
     230.111). Annual training goals are submitted to FHWA 
     Division Administrators for approval. The State selects 
     the contracts on which these slots are to be included in 
     order to achieve the goal. Contractors bidding on the 
     contracts include the costs of the trainees (including 
     salaries) as part of their bids.
       Under paragraph (a)(1), the State could reserve some of its 
     training slots for welfare recipients. The State could 
     require contractors on Federal-aid projects to fill some of 
     the training slots designated for the contract with welfare 
     recipients. To minimize the burden on the contractor, DOT 
     could require the State to identify eligible welfare 
     recipients in the guidance implementing the program.
       Subparagraph (a)(2)(A) Subsection 140(b) currently provides 
     the authority for the FHWA's On-the-Job Training (OJT) 
     Supportive Services Program. Funds are authorized to be used 
     under this section to develop, conduct, and administer 
     highway construction training, including skill improvement 
     programs. Subparagraph (a)(2)(A) expands the scope of the OJT 
     program to include technology training. This change is 
     proposed so as to capitalize on training opportunities in 
     connection with Intelligent Transportation Systems and other 
     transportation-related technology. This subparagraph also 
     adds Summer Transportation Institutes to the types of 
     programs that can be funded under subsection 140(b). Summer 
     Transportation Institutes are programs that are sponsored by 
     colleges (mostly Minority Institutions of Higher Education) 
     to expose high school students to careers in transportation, 
     to assist them in developing skills that they would need to 
     pursue a career in transportation, and to familiarize them 
     with a college environment. Expanding the program to include 
     Summer Transportation Institutes allows States to provide 
     education, guidance, and motivation for disadvantaged and at-
     risk youth and to develop a future pool of transportation 
     professionals.
       Subparagraph (a)(2)(B) Under the current law, the Secretary 
     is authorized to reserve up to $10 million of the funds 
     authorized under 23 U.S.C. 104(a) to fund the OJT Supportive 
     Services Program. However, this provision was last funded by 
     Congress in 1995, and only at a level of $2 million. FHWA 
     used this funding to pay for ten pilot projects and 
     initiatives focusing on skill improvement and outreach 
     programs to minorities and women. The current legislation 
     also authorizes States to draw down up to \1/2\ of 1 percent 
     of funds apportioned to it for the surface transportation 
     program under subsection 104(b) and the bridge program under 
     section 144. Although there is a significant amount of 
     funding available to the States from this source, the use of 
     these funds has been limited. For example, in 1996, a total 
     of 12 states drew down only 12 percent (less than $4 million) 
     of the $32 million available to develop OJT Supportive 
     Services Programs.
       Even though States are not extensively using these funds, a 
     need for training in highway construction and related work 
     continues to exist, especially for disadvantaged and 
     traditionally under represented segments of the population. 
     Women in particular are under-represented in highway 
     construction work: employment of women in highway 
     construction still has not even achieved the goal of 6.9 
     percent established by the Department of Labor. Further, with 
     the enactment of the Welfare Reform Act, more unskilled 
     workers will be seeking jobs as they are moved off of welfare 
     assistance. Implementation of OJT Supportive Services 
     Programs by the States can help prepare individuals in these 
     groups to take advantage of job opportunities in highway 
     construction and technology.
       The statutory language authorizing the States to draw down 
     these funds currently provides that the \1/2\ percent 
     drawdown ``may be available'' to States to implement OJT 
     Supportive Services programs. This subparagraph proposes to 
     change this language to provide that the \1/2\ percent 
     drawdown ``should be utilized'' by States to implement OJT 
     Supportive Services Programs. Although the proposed change 
     does not require that States use this draw down, it is 
     intended to more strongly encourage States to use this 
     funding to ensure that some measure of training is available 
     to increase job opportunities on highway construction and 
     related work.
     Subsection (b) Employment
       American Indians continue to experience unemployment at a 
     disproportionately high rate. On Indian reservations and in 
     Native communities, chronic unemployment ranges from 25 to 85 
     percent. Subsection 140(d) of title 23, United States Code, 
     currently provides that States ``may'' implement a preference 
     for employment. Paragraph (b)(1) would change this subsection 
     to provide that States ``should'' implement a preference for 
     employment. Although the proposed change does not constitute 
     a mandate, it is intended to more strongly encourage States 
     to implement employment preferences of Indians on projects 
     carried out under title 23 near Indian reservations.
       This subsection adds a new subsection to 23 U.S.C. 140 that 
     would encourage States to require a contractor on Federal-aid 
     highway projects to hire a certain number of qualified 
     welfare recipients residing in the State, or to hire a 
     certain number of residents of Empowerment Zones or 
     Enterprise Communities (areas of pervasive poverty, 
     unemployment, and general distress that have been designated 
     in accordance with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1993). This new subsection (140(e)) would provide a way for 
     the States to create job opportunities to move people from 
     welfare to work in order to meet their obligations under the 
     Welfare Reform bill. It would also allow States to create job 
     opportunities for people living in Empowerment Zones and 
     Enterprise Communities.
       In the proposed program, protections for contractors, as 
     well as protections (such as appeal rights) for potentially 
     eligible welfare recipients, could be included in guidance 
     implementing the program.
       This subsection also adds a definition of ``welfare 
     assistance.''
       Also, this subsection adds a new subsection to 23 U.S.C. 
     140, concerning employment on Federal-aid highway projects in 
     the Virgin Islands. High and chronic unemployment continues 
     to depress the economy of the territory of the Virgin 
     Islands. Recent natural disasters have had an additional 
     negative impact on the economy. Job opportunities that 
     typically accompany federally-funded projects are 
     frequently taken by non-residents who are employed by 
     companies that are based outside of the Virgin Islands.
       This subsection (140(g)) would permit the territory of the 
     Virgin Islands to require a contractor on a Federal-aid 
     highway project to give preferences in hiring to qualified 
     persons who regularly reside in the Virgin Islands. Allowing 
     such a preference gives the Virgin Islands a means to help 
     reduce unemployment and to recapture federal funds in its 
     local economy. As in the welfare recipient program described 
     in new subsection 140(e), implementing guidance could include 
     protections for the contractors as well as for potentially 
     eligible residents.
     Subsection (c) Technical Corrections
       This subsection makes several purely technical corrections 
     to update and correct the language of section 140.
     Subsection (d). Minority Institutions of Higher Education
       This subsection is intended to carry out one of the 
     objectives of Executive Orders 12982, ``Promoting Procurement 
     with Small Businesses Owned and Controlled by Socially and 
     Economically Disadvantaged Individuals, Historically Black 
     Colleges and Universities, and Minority Institutions.'' This 
     Executive Order requires Federal agencies to establish goals 
     for participation in federal procurement by Historically 
     Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other Minority 
     Institutions of Higher Education (MIHEs) of not less than 5 
     percent.
       In the past, FHWA established various initiatives to 
     enhance the involvement of MIHEs in all aspects of its 
     federal and federal-aid funded programs. Beginning in FY 95, 
     FHWA set a goal of not less than 5 percent of its research 
     and technology funds to be awarded annually to MIHEs. 
     Although various grants and cooperative agreements have been 
     awarded to MIHEs, the competition requirements for research 
     and technology contracts are an obstacle in achieving the 
     goal. In 1995, FHWA achieved only 3 percent of its 5 percent 
     goal. MIHEs continue to face barriers to participation in the 
     Federal and Federal-aid highway program, particularly when 
     they are required to compete for grants and contracts with 
     majority institutions which have well-established physical 
     plants as well as advance technological expertise and 
     equipment.
       Under this subsection, the Secretary is directed to develop 
     a program designed to remove barriers to participation by 
     MIHEs and help them gain the experience and expertise 
     necessary to be competitive with other educational 
     institutions. The Secretary would be able to carry out this 
     program through a variety of mechanisms, including expanded 
     outreach and technical assistance. In addition, 
     notwithstanding the competitive bidding requirements 
     contained elsewhere in title 23, the Secretary would also be 
     permitted limit competition to increase awards under this 
     section. However, such methods may only be used consistent 
     with any laws relating to affirmative action in Federal 
     procurement that apply to this program.
     Sec. 1018. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs)
       This section continues the provisions regarding affirmative 
     action found in Sec. 1003(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     (ISTEA). Paragraph 1003(b)(1), now subsection 162(a), 
     requires that 10 percent of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated under four titles of the ISTEA be expended with 
     small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals, except to the extent

[[Page S2454]]

     that the Secretary of Transportation determines otherwise. 
     Paragraph 1003(b)(2), now subsection 162(b), defines the 
     terms ``small business concern'' and ``socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals.'' Paragraph 
     1003(b)(3), now subsection 162(c), requires States to 
     annually survey and compile a list of DBEs. Paragraph 
     1003(b)(4), now subsection 162(d), requires the Secretary to 
     establish uniform criteria for State governments to use in 
     certifying whether a concern qualifies as a DBE under this 
     section.
       This subsection has served the Department well in 
     administering its contracting programs. In FHWA's program 
     alone, the total dollar amount to DBEs in the form of prime 
     contract awards and subcontract commitments is $10.4 billion. 
     Significantly, prior to the enactment of the DBE program by 
     Congress in 1982, minority and women-owned firms participated 
     in approximately 3.5 percent of the Federal-aid highway 
     program.
       In 1995, the Supreme Court decided Adarand v Pena, and 
     heightened the standard of judicial review applicable to 
     Federal affirmative action programs, requiring that they meet 
     a standard of ``strict scrutiny.'' The Adarand decision 
     involved the FHWA's Federal land highway program. The Federal 
     land program is carried out directly by FHWA. At issue was a 
     contract provision designed to encourage prime contractors to 
     utilize the services of small and disadvantaged business 
     enterprises through a compensatory incentive payment. The 
     Federal land highway program uses this provision as part of 
     its effort to comply with both ISTEA and the Small Business 
     Act.
       Although deciding that strict scrutiny should henceforth 
     apply to all Federal affirmative action programs, the Supreme 
     Court did not strike down existing statutory requirements. 
     Instead, it remanded the case to the lower courts to 
     determine whether the program at issue meets the strict 
     scrutiny standard of review. By this action, the Supreme 
     Court implicitly recognized the continuing constitutionality 
     of properly structured affirmative action programs.
       Indeed, the majority opinion in Adarand recognized the 
     ``unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering 
     effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in 
     this country.'' It emphasized that strict scrutiny was not to 
     be ``strict in theory, but fatal in fact.'' The President, in 
     charging Federal agencies to review their programs after the 
     Adarand decision, expressed his desire to ``mend, not end" 
     affirmative action.
       In order to comply with the Supreme Court's ``strict 
     scrutiny'' standard, there must be a ``compelling 
     governmental interest'' to create an affirmative action 
     program. The continued disparity, absent affirmative action 
     measures, in the amount of business actually done by 
     minority and women owned business in relation to the 
     number of individuals ready, willing and able to work in 
     various aspects of the construction and transportation 
     industries has been well documented. A preliminary survey 
     of evidence demonstrating a ``compelling governmental 
     interest'' for affirmative action in Federal procurement 
     was published on May 23, 1996, in the Federal Register by 
     the Department of Justice as an appendix to its ``Notice 
     of Proposed Reforms to Affirmative Action in Federal 
     Procurement.'' Information available to the Department of 
     Transportation, some of it considered by the Congress in 
     the past, attests to the continuing need of programs which 
     provide enhanced opportunities for disadvantaged business 
     enterprises.
       Strict scrutiny requires more. In order to pass 
     constitutional muster, an affirmative action program must be 
     ``narrowly tailored'' to meet its objectives. The goals or 
     levels of DBE participation should reflect the capacity that 
     such businesses would have had to do the work, but for the 
     continuing effects of discrimination. The 10 percent goal set 
     forth in ISTEA has served the Department well, and has been 
     readily attainable throughout the United States. However, the 
     goal has never been more than a guidepost, even before the 
     Adarand decision. Both the current and proposed regulations 
     require each State and local recipient to establish an 
     overall goal for its program, based on information from its 
     particular jurisdiction. The goals may be higher or lower 
     than 10 percent, based on State and local contracting 
     conditions.
       For all of these reasons, continuation of the existing law 
     makes sense. The law sets forth a general goal for the 
     country as a whole. It also gives broad discretion to the 
     Secretary to develop a program which responds to the strict 
     scrutiny standard, both in terms of specific program 
     provisions and higher or lower State or local goals where 
     appropriate. The Department has reviewed its program and is 
     confident that it would survive the strict scrutiny standard 
     required under Adarand. However, in order to improve the 
     program based on the President's direction to ``mend, not 
     end'' Federal affirmative action programs, and to further 
     clarify how the program complies with the Adarand decision, 
     the Department is proposing a number of changes to its 
     regulations implementing the program.
       To this end, the Department will publish its proposed 
     revisions to its current DBE regulations shortly after 
     submitting this bill. It is our belief that these proposed 
     revisions illustrate the flexibility of the current law and 
     the wisdom of allowing the Department to deal 
     administratively with these exceedingly complex issues. 
     First, the revised regulations will set forth a new method by 
     which recipients will establish goals, consistent with the 
     post-Adarand guidance issued by the Department of Justice. 
     Secondly, the regulations will establish that race-neutral 
     measures (such as outreach programs, technical assistance, 
     and assistance in financing) should be used first by 
     recipients to reach their overall goals. Race- and gender-
     conscious mechanisms, such as subcontracting goals, should 
     only be used to the extent that race-neutral mechanisms fail. 
     Finally, the regulations will propose alternatives to limit 
     the duration of firms' participation in the program, and to 
     reduce the concentration of DBE firms in certain types of 
     work. It is the intent of the Department to finalize these 
     regulations over the next few months after carefully 
     evaluating the many comments we receive.
     Sec. 1019. Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation 
         Program
       Subsection (a) of his section sets forth a new, revised 
     section 144 of title 23, United States Code, which provides 
     as follows.
       Subsection 144(a) lists the purposes of the HBRRP, which 
     have been revised to reflect the expanded funding eligibility 
     under this revised section (see subsection 144(c) below).
       Subsection 144(b) requires the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the States, to annually inventory certain highway 
     bridges on public roads. It also requires the Secretary to 
     consult with the Secretary of the Interior when inventorying 
     highway bridges on Indian reservation roads and park roads. 
     This subsection also permits the Secretary to inventory 
     highway bridges on public roads for historical significance.
       Subsection 144(c) lists the types of projects that are 
     eligible for HBRRP funds under this section. Eligibility is 
     divided into two main categories: (1) replacement or 
     rehabilitation of deficient highway bridges, and (2) 
     preventive measures, i.e., seismic retrofitting, painting, 
     calcium magnesium acetate application, and installation of 
     scour countermeasures. This subsection expands current HBRRP 
     eligibility, adding scour countermeasures.
       Under subsection 144(d), the current apportionment formula 
     for HBRRP funds is retained; these funds would be apportioned 
     between the States based on the square footage of deficient 
     bridges in each State. But the total cost of deficient 
     bridges in a State would be reduced in fiscal year 2003 by 
     the amount of HBRRP funds that the State transferred to its 
     NHS or STP accounts in the previous four fiscal year and did 
     not restore back to its HBRRP apportionment by the end of 
     fiscal year 2002. Subsection 144(d) also includes provisions 
     governing each State's annual share of the total 
     apportionment and the percentage of HBRRP apportionments that 
     each State must spend on projects on highway bridges on 
     public roads classified as local roads or rural minor 
     collectors.
       Subsection 144(e) provides an exemption from the U.S. Coast 
     Guard's bridge permitting requirement for the replacement of 
     highway bridges.
       The separate biennial reporting requirement on HBRRP 
     projects, bridge inventories, and recommendations for 
     improvements to the program has been deleted. Instead, this 
     report will be merged with and submitted as a part of the 
     FHWA's biennial conditions and performance report.
       Subsection 144(f) provides that each State's apportionment 
     shall be made available for obligation throughout the State 
     on a fair and equitable basis.
       Subsection 144(g) requires the Secretary to periodically 
     review the procedure used in approving or disapproving 
     States' applications for HBRRP funds and implement any 
     changes that would expedite this procedure.
       Subsection 144(h) requires each State to inventory its 
     bridges to determine their historical significance. This 
     subsection also makes certain historical bridge projects 
     eligible for HBRRP funds and it establishes a process by 
     which a State, locality, or responsible private entity may 
     assume responsibility for a historic bridge that would 
     otherwise be demolished.
       Subsection 144(i) states that State laws and standards 
     apply to any HBRRP-funded project not on the National Highway 
     System.
       Subsection 144(j) defines the term ``rehabilitate'' to mean 
     major work necessary to restore the structural integrity of a 
     bridge and work necessary to correct a major safety defect.
       Subsection 144(k) reauthorizes the current bridge 
     discretionary program at an annual funding level of $55 
     million.
       Subsection (b) of this section amends the bridge funds 
     transferability language in 23 U.S.C. 104(g) to enable a 
     State to transfer 50 percent of its HBRRP apportionment to 
     its NHS or STP apportionments only if none of the National 
     Highway System bridges in the State require posting under 
     National Bridge Inventory Item 70, bridge posting, which 
     evaluates the load-carrying capacity of a bridge. If the 
     maximum legal load produces a structural stress level above 
     the bridge operating capacity, the bridge must be posted at a 
     lower load level. Therefore, NHS bridges that must be posted 
     are the structures that the States should be replacing or 
     rehabilitating before any HBRRP funds may be transferred to 
     their NHS or STP apportionments.
     Sec. 1020. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 
         (CMAQ) Program
       Subsection (a) of this section amends subsection 149(a) of 
     title 23, United States Code,

[[Page S2455]]

     to reflect that the congestion mitigation and air quality 
     improvement program provided for under this section has 
     already been established.
       Subsection (b):
       Areas in Nonattainment as of FY 1994: Subsection (b) 
     strikes the provision in 149(b) that ``froze'' the 
     nonattainment areas eligible for CMAQ funds as they were 
     during any part of fiscal year 1994.
       Expansion to PM-10 Areas: Subsection (b) amends subsection 
     149(b) to expand CMAQ eligibility to expressly include 
     projects in nonattainment areas for particulate matter (PM-
     10). FHWA has administratively interpreted subsection 149(b) 
     to include PM-10 projects; this language codifies this 
     eligibility.
       Exclusion of Transitional, Submarginal, Not Classified, and 
     Unclassified Areas: Subsection (b) also limits CMAQ 
     eligibility to nonattainment and maintenance areas that were 
     classified as such under the Clean Air Act amendments of 
     1990, thereby excluding transitional, submarginal, not 
     classified and unclassified areas from CMAQ eligibility. This 
     provision codifies NHS Act conference report language that 
     accompanied amendments made by that act to the CMAQ program.
       Expansion to Two Additional Transportation Control 
     Measures: Subsection (b) also expands CMAQ eligibility to 
     include two traffic control measures identified in the 1990 
     amendments to the Clean Air Act: vehicle scrappage of pre-
     1980 vehicles and extreme cold start programs.
       Clarification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Area 
     Eligibility/Emissions Reductions: Subsection (b) also revises 
     subsection 149(b) to clarify that only projects that make 
     further improvements to current air quality standards are 
     eligible for CMAQ funding in both nonattainment and 
     maintenance areas. In the case of maintenance areas, 
     subsection (b) expressly provides that projects must reduce 
     emissions to be eligible for CMAQ funds.
       Traffic Management and Control Projects: Subsection (b) 
     also consolidates current paragraphs 149(b)(3) and (4). In 
     doing so, this subsection also removes current paragraph 
     149(b)(4)'s reference to operating assistance for traffic 
     management and control projects. This would restore the 
     general 3-year cap on funding operating assistance, which has 
     been established administratively and which applies to all 
     other CMAQ projects, to traffic management and control 
     projects.
       Subsection (c) simply designates the penultimate sentence 
     of subsection 149(b) as new subsection 149(c), and it 
     redesignates 149(c) and (d) as (d) and (e), respectively. The 
     final sentence of subsection 149(b), which addressed the 
     potential eligibility of PM-10 projects within certain 
     nonattainment areas, is deleted as unnecessary, since PM-10 
     eligibility has been expressly included (see subsection (b) 
     above).
       Current section 149(c) allows States that have never had a 
     nonattainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, or PM-10 to 
     use CMAQ funds for any project eligible under the surface 
     transportation program. Such areas may also continue to fund 
     CMAQ-eligible projects.
       Subsection (d) of this section would require that States 
     without nonattainment areas but with maintenance areas fund 
     first CMAQ-eligible activities in such maintenance areas with 
     their CMAQ funds, unless the State can show that its 
     transportation-related maintenance plan activities are fully 
     funded.
       Subsection (e) of this section provides that, for purposes 
     of CMAQ funding, the boundaries of nonattainment and 
     maintenance areas will generally continue to be determined in 
     accordance with the classification scheme in the 1990 
     amendments to the Clean Air Act. If the nonattainment 
     boundaries change as a result of new national ambient air 
     quality standards and any additional area newly designated as 
     a result of such standards has submitted to EPA a State 
     implementation plan, such boundaries would be used under this 
     section.
       Subsection (f) amends subsection 120(c) of title 23, United 
     States Code, to exclude projects funded with CMAQ 
     apportionments from the list of certain safety projects 
     eligible for 100 percent Federal participation. As a 
     result, the standard 80 percent Federal share provision of 
     subsection 120(b) that applies to all other CMAQ projects 
     would apply to these projects as well.
     Sec. 1021. Interstate Reimbursement
       Subsection (a) updates the general authority provision of 
     23 U.S.C. 160 which directs the Secretary to allocate to the 
     States amounts determined under subsection 160(b) for 
     reimbursement of their original contributions to construction 
     of segments of the Interstate System which were constructed 
     without Federal financial assistance, to reauthorize this 
     provision for fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       Subsection (b) updates 23 U.S.C. 160(b) to render this 
     provision applicable in fiscal years 1998 through 2003. 
     Subsection 160(b) addresses the procedure for determining the 
     amount each State will receive for reimbursement under this 
     section.
       Subsection (c) revises 23 U.S.C. 160(e), which directs that 
     provisions in 23 U.S.C. 133 regarding the allocation of STP 
     apportionments do not apply to half of the amount transferred 
     under to this section to each State's STP apportionment. 
     Subsection (c) makes a purely technical edit to subsection 
     160(e) to reflect the redesignation of 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(3) as 
     133(d)(2) in light of the elimination of the safety set-aside 
     (previously in 133(d)(1)) from the surface transportation 
     program. Safety programs will now be funded directly and not 
     as a take-down from the surface transportation program.
       Subsection (d) revises subsection 23 U.S.C. 160(f) to 
     authorize the appropriation of $1 billion for each of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2003 in accordance with this section.
     Sec. 1022. State Infrastructure Bank Program
       Subsection (a) of this section codifies in title 23, United 
     States Code, and thereby makes permanent the State 
     Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Pilot Program authorized for fiscal 
     years 1996 and 1997 in section 350 of the National Highway 
     System Designation Act of 1995 (NHS Act). In codifying this 
     language, references to ISTEA provisions and reporting 
     requirements which will be out of date upon reauthorization 
     of the surface transportation program were also removed. In 
     all other respects, this section is identical to section 350 
     of the NHS Act, except where noted below.
       Under subsection 162(a), States are permitted to enter into 
     agreements with the Secretary to create both single-State and 
     multi-State infrastructure banks. This provision eliminates 
     the 10-State limit on the number of participants in the SIB 
     program, which was included in section 350 of the NHS Act.
       Under subsection 162(b), SIBs are required to maintain 
     separate highway account for funds apportioned to the 
     participating State or States under certain provisions of 
     title 23, United States Code and a separate transit account 
     for funds made available to the participating State or other 
     Federal transit grant recipient under certain provisions of 
     title 49, United States Code. A participating State may 
     contribute to the highway account up to 10 percent of its 
     annual apportionments of NHS, STP, Interstate Maintenance, 
     HBRRP, Interstate reimbursement, and minimum allocation 
     funds. A participating State may also contribute up to 10 
     percent of the funds annually apportioned to metropolitan 
     regions if the metropolitan planning organization concurs 
     with such action in writing. Federal grant recipients in a 
     State may contribute up to 10 percent of their annual Section 
     3, Section 9, and Section 18 capital grants into the transit 
     account of its SIB.
       Subsection 162(c) permits SIBs to make loans or provide 
     other assistance to a public or private entity and permits 
     such loans or other assistance to be subordinated to any 
     other debt financing for the project. This subsection 
     prohibits the initial Federal assistance from a SIB to be 
     made in the form of a grant.
       Subsection 162(d) provides that any project eligible for 
     funding under title 23, United States Code, may be funded 
     from the highway account of a SIB, and that any capital 
     transit project may be funded from the transit account of a 
     SIB. This language expands highway account eligibility beyond 
     what was included in section 350 of the NHS Act. Under 
     section 350, funds in the highway account of a SIB could 
     finance the construction of Federal-aid highways only.
       Subsection 162(e) lists the requirements a State must meet 
     to establish a SIB under this section. At a minimum, a State 
     must match 25 percent of the Federal contribution with funds 
     from non-Federal sources (except as provided by 23 U.S.C. 
     120(b)). This matching provision is the same as the 
     traditional Federal-aid highway matching requirement (which 
     is most often expressed as an 80/20 match). A State must also 
     ensure that its SIB maintains an investment grade rating on a 
     continuing basis or has a sufficient level of bond or debt 
     financing instrument insurance to maintain the viability of 
     the bank. Income generated by funds contributed to an account 
     of the bank will be credited to the account, invested in U.S. 
     Treasury Securities or other approved financing instruments, 
     and be made available for use in providing loans and other 
     assistance. Any loan from a SIB shall bear interest at or 
     below market rates, and each participating State must ensure 
     that repayment of any loan made by its SIB begins within 5 
     years after the project has been completed, or, in the case 
     of a highway project, the facility has opened to traffic, 
     whichever is later. The term for repaying any loan may not 
     exceed 30 years after the date of the first payment. Finally, 
     the State shall require its SIB to annually report to the 
     Secretary.
       Under subsection 162(f), the repayment of a loan or other 
     assistance provided by a SIB may only be used to fund 
     eligible projects under this section and may not be used to 
     pay the non-Federal share of the cost of any project.
       Subsection 162(g) requires the Secretary to ensure that 
     Federal disbursements be made at an annual rate of 20 percent 
     of the amount requested by the State for the SIB. This 
     subsection differs from the disbursement provision in section 
     350 of the NHS Act, which required that Federal-aid highway 
     and Federal transit funds be disbursed at rates consistent 
     with their respective historical disbursement rates. Federal 
     requirements would apply to all projects receiving assistance 
     through the SIB. However, the Secretary may waive 
     requirements in titles 23 and 49, United States Code, when 
     the Secretary determines that such requirements are not 
     consistent with the purposes of this section, e.g., 
     provisions relating to project payments, except the 
     Secretary may not waive 23 U.S.C. 113 and 114 and 49 
     U.S.C. 5333. This provision differs from the SIB pilot 
     program in section 350 of the NHS Act, where Federal 
     requirements only

[[Page S2456]]

     applied to the amount of Federal funds in the SIB. The 
     Secretary shall revise cooperative agreements executed 
     with the States under the pilot program to bring them into 
     accord with the provisions of this section.
       Some examples of provisions in title 23 which may be found 
     by the Secretary to be inconsistent with the administration 
     of SIBs are as follows. (1) Where SIBs require that 
     obligation and payment of Federal funds occur at the time of 
     capitalization (before a SIB has provided assistance to any 
     approved project), 23 U.S.C. 106 requires that Federal-aid 
     highway funds be obligated at the time a project is approved, 
     and 23 U.S.C. 121 requires payment to be made as costs are 
     incurred by the State. (2) Where SIBs require non-Federal 
     sources to match 25 percent of the total Federal 
     capitalization grant contributed to the bank, 23 U.S.C. 120 
     establishes the Federal share on a project-by-project basis. 
     (3) Where SIBs require capitalization funds to be used as the 
     non-Federal match, 23 U.S.C. 323 allows donations to be 
     applied to individual projects to meet this matching 
     requirement. In the current SIB pilot program, the Secretary 
     has determined that Federal-aid highway projects on a toll 
     facility funded from a SIB are not required to comply with 23 
     U.S.C. 129(a)(3), which imposes restrictions on the use of 
     toll revenues generated by the facility.
       Subsection 162(h) clarifies that all requirements of 
     Federal law that apply to projects receiving assistance under 
     such titles shall apply to projects receiving assistance from 
     a SIB, except to the extent the Secretary may waive a Federal 
     law, other than sections 113 and 114 of title 23 and section 
     5333 of title 49, under paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
       Subsection 162(i) provides that the contribution of Federal 
     funds into a SIB under this section shall not be construed as 
     a commitment, guarantee, or obligation on the part of the 
     U.S. to any third party, nor shall any third party have any 
     right against the United States for payment solely by virtue 
     of the contribution. This subsection also requires any 
     security or debt financing instrument issued by a SIB under 
     this section to include this same statement.
       Subsection 162(j) exempts funds contributed to a SIB under 
     this section from the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3335 and 
     6503, which govern the manner in which funds are disbursed.
       Subsection 162(k) permits a State to spend as much as 2 
     percent of the Federal contributions to its SIB to pay the 
     reasonable costs of administering the SIB.
       Subsection 162(l) defines, for purposes of this section, 
     the terms ``capital project,'' ``other assistance,'' and 
     ``State.''
       Subsection (b) of this section authorizes annual 
     appropriations from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
     Mass Transit Account) for the SIB program at $150 million for 
     each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 and provides that such 
     funds shall remain available until expended and shall have 
     contract authority.
       Subsection (c) makes a conforming amendment to the analysis 
     for chapter 1 of title 23, adding a reference to this new 
     section 162.
     Sec. 1023. National Scenic Byways Program
       Subsection (a) of this section amends chapter 1 of title 
     23, United States Code, to add a new section, Sec. 163, 
     codifying the National Scenic Byways Program.
       Subsection 163(a) directs the Secretary of Transportation 
     to carry out the National Scenic Byways program and designate 
     roads having outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural 
     or archeological qualities as National Scenic Byways or All-
     American Roads. Criteria for designation have been defined in 
     an FHWA interim policy notice, which was published in the 
     Federal Register in May 1995.
       Subsection 163(b) directs the Secretary to make grants and 
     provide technical assistance to the States to implement 
     National Scenic Byways, State scenic byways, and All-American 
     Roads projects and to plan, design, and develop State scenic 
     byways programs. A key aim of providing technical assistance 
     is to educate and increase awareness about the development, 
     management, and operation of scenic byways programs. 
     Paragraph 163(b)(2) lists the priorities that must be given 
     to eligible projects when making grants of scenic byways 
     funds under this section. These are: projects on routes 
     designated as either National Scenic Byways or All-American 
     Roads, projects that would make routes eligible for 
     designation as National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads, 
     and projects that will assist States in developing their 
     State scenic byways programs.
       Subsection 163(c) lists the eight categories of projects 
     eligible for scenic byways funding under this section.
       Subsection 163(d) provides that the Federal share payable 
     on account of any project under this section shall be 
     determined in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 120(b), except that, 
     for projects on Federal or Indian Lands, a Federal land 
     management agency may contribute the non-Federal share 
     payable on such projects.
       Subsection 163(e) authorizes $15 million for each of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2003 for carrying out this scenic byways 
     program.
       Subsection 163(f) enables the Secretary to authorize scenic 
     byways funds only for projects that protect the scenic, 
     historic, recreational, cultural, natural, and archeological 
     integrity of a highway and adjacent areas.
       Subsection (b) of this section makes a conforming amendment 
     to the analysis for chapter 1, adding a reference to this new 
     section.
     Sec. 1024. Infrastructure Safety Program
       This section combines current sections 130 [Railway-highway 
     crossings] and 152 [Hazard elimination program] of title 23, 
     United States Code, into one section: 23 U.S.C. 164. Except 
     where noted below, these provisions are unchanged from 
     current law.
       Paragraph 164(a)(1) sets forth the eligible railway-highway 
     crossing uses of funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 104. These 
     funds may be used to fund 90 percent of the cost of 
     construction of projects for the elimination of hazards of 
     railway-highway crossings, including the separation or 
     protection of grades at crossings, the reconstruction of 
     existing railroad grade crossing structures, and the 
     relocation of highways to eliminate grade crossings.
       Paragraph 164(a)(2) sets forth the eligible uses of 
     railway-highway crossing funds apportioned under subsection 
     164(a). These uses include those listed in 164(a)(1) for 
     section 104 funds and also include the following new uses: 
     trespassing countermeasures, railway-highway crossing 
     education, enforcement of traffic laws, and projects at 
     privately owned railway-highway crossings if the project is 
     publicly sponsored and the Secretary determines that such 
     project would serve a public interest.
       Paragraph 164(a)(3) authorizes the Secretary to classify 
     various types of projects involved in the elimination of 
     hazards of railway-highway crossings and to determine a 
     railroad's share of the cost of such projects, based on the 
     project's net benefit to the railroad.
       Paragraph 164(a)(4) sets forth the payment and collection 
     methods of amounts representing the net benefits to any 
     railroad of a project for the elimination of hazards of 
     railway-highway crossings funded under title 23, United 
     States Code, or any prior Acts.
       Paragraph 164(a)(5) requires each State to conduct and 
     maintain a survey of all highways to identify those railroad 
     crossings that may require separation, relocation, or 
     protective devices, and to establish and implement a schedule 
     to complete these projects. This paragraph also includes a 
     new requirement that States report to the Department on 
     completed railway-highway crossing projects funded under this 
     subsection and section 165, for inclusion in the DOT/AAR 
     National Grade Crossing Inventory.
       Paragraph 164(a)(6) sets forth a new apportionment formula 
     for railway-highway crossing funds. Under current law, funds 
     are not apportioned in accordance with the apportionment 
     formula in 23 U.S.C. 130(f), but are distributed in 
     accordance with 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(1), which provides that each 
     State shall receive an amount at least equal to the amount of 
     funds made available to the State for carrying out railway-
     highway crossing projects under this provision in fiscal year 
     1991. Under paragraph 164(a)(6), railway-highway crossing 
     funds would be apportioned as follows: 25 percent of the 
     funds would be apportioned in the ratio that each State's 
     most recent 3-year total of crashes at public railway-highway 
     grade crossings bears to such total in all States, 25 percent 
     are apportioned in the ratio that each State's most recent 3-
     year total of fatalities involving rail equipment at public 
     railway-highway grade crossings bears to such total in all 
     States, 25 percent of the funds would be apportioned in the 
     ratio that each State's number of public railway-highway 
     grade crossings bears to such number in all States, and 25 
     percent of the funds would be apportioned in the ratio that 
     each State's number of public railway-highway grade crossings 
     with passive warning devices bears to such number in all 
     States.
       Paragraph 164(a)(7) requires that at least one-half of the 
     railway-highway crossing funds authorized under this 
     subsection be made available for the installation of, and 
     educational and enforcement efforts on, protective devices at 
     railway-highway crossings. This paragraph expands this 
     protective devices set-aside to include enforcement and 
     education efforts; current law (23 U.S.C. 130(e)) makes these 
     funds available only for the installation of protective 
     devices.
       Subparagraph 164(a)(8)(A) provides that the Federal share 
     payable on any project financed with railway-highway crossing 
     funds under this subsection shall be 90 percent of the cost 
     thereof. Subparagraph 164(a)(8)(B) permits railway-highway 
     crossing funds to be used as the local match on projects 
     eligible under this section where State law conditions the 
     use of State funds on such projects on the provision of local 
     matching funds.
       Paragraph 164(a)(9) authorizes each State to transfer funds 
     from its railway-highway crossing apportionment to its hazard 
     elimination apportionment in an amount equal to the 
     percentage by which the number of crashes in the State has 
     been reduced (in the most recent calendar year) below the 
     average annual number of crashes that occurred in such State 
     in calendar years 1994, 1995, and 1996.
       Paragraph 164(a)(10) authorizes States to make incentive 
     payments to local governments upon the permanent closure of 
     railway-highway crossings under such local governments' 
     jurisdiction. This paragraph also prohibits a State from 
     making an incentive payment unless the railroad that owns the 
     tracks on which crossing that is to be closed is located 
     makes an incentive payment to the local government 
     responsible for permanently closing such crossing. In 
     addition,

[[Page S2457]]

     this paragraph limits the amount of the State payment to the 
     lesser of the railroad's contribution or $7,500, and it 
     requires local governments to use any State payment made 
     under this section for transportation safety improvements.
       Paragraph 164(b)(1) authorizes the use of hazard 
     elimination funds on any highway safety improvement project.
       Paragraph 164(b)(2) requires each State to conduct and 
     maintain a survey of all public roads to identify hazardous 
     locations, sections, and elements that may constitute a 
     danger to motorists and pedestrians, assign priorities for 
     the correction of such areas, and establish and implement a 
     schedule to complete these projects.
       Paragraph 164(b)(3) requires each State to establish an 
     evaluation process to assess the results achieved by highway 
     safety improvement projects carried out under this 
     subsection.
       Paragraph 164(b)(4) provides that hazard elimination funds 
     shall be apportioned to the States in a manner similar to 
     that provided in 23 U.S.C. 402(c): 75 percent based on each 
     State's population and 25 percent based on each State's 
     public road mileage. This provision is the same as the 
     apportionment formula currently in subsection 152(e), 
     however, under current law, funds are not apportioned in 
     accordance with the apportionment formula in 23 U.S.C. 
     152(f), but are distributed in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 
     133(d)(1), which provides that each State shall receive an 
     amount at least equal to the amount of funds made available 
     to the State for carrying out hazard elimination projects 
     under this provision in fiscal year 1991.
       Subparagraph 164(b)(5)(A) provides that the Federal share 
     payable on account of any hazard elimination project shall be 
     90 percent of the cost thereof. Subparagraph 164(b)(5)(B) 
     authorizes the use of hazard elimination funds made available 
     under this subsection on any public road other than a highway 
     on the Interstate System.
       Paragraph 164(b)(6) authorizes each State to transfer as 
     much as 100 percent of its hazard elimination apportionment 
     to either its highway safety apportionment under 23 U.S.C. 
     402 or its motor carrier safety allocation under 49 U.S.C. 
     31104 upon a determination by the Secretary that the State 
     would be eligible to receive an integrated safety fund grant 
     under 23 U.S.C. 165. This language is new. It replaces the 
     transferability language currently found in the first two 
     sentences of 23 U.S.C. 104(g), which permits States to 
     transfer 40 percent of their railway-highway crossing, hazard 
     elimination, and highway bridge replacement and 
     rehabilitation program (HBRRP) apportionments among these 
     three categories upon a finding by the Secretary that such 
     transfer is in the public interest. Subsection 104(g) also 
     permits the transfer of 100 percent of the apportionment 
     under one such program to the apportionment under any other 
     of such programs if the Secretary finds that such transfer is 
     in the public interest and the State satisfactorily assures 
     the Secretary that the purposes of the program from which 
     such funds will be transferred have been met. Paragraph 
     164(b)(6) does not provide for the transfer of funds between 
     the highway safety programs authorized under this section and 
     the HBRRP under 144, as subsection 104(g) does, because this 
     transfer authority has not been used by any State.
       Paragraph 164(b)(7) provides that, for purposes of 
     subsection 164(b), the term ``State'' shall have the meaning 
     given this term in 23 U.S.C. 401.
       Section 165 authorizes the Secretary to make grants of new 
     integrated safety funds to any State that the Secretary finds 
     has an integrated State highway safety planning process and 
     has established integrated goals and benchmarks for safety 
     improvements.
       The amount of any grant made under this section in any 
     fiscal year shall be an amount equal to the percentage that 
     each eligible State's apportionment under 23 U.S.C. 402 for 
     such fiscal year bears to the total apportionment under 
     section 402 to all States for such fiscal year, but in no 
     case could the grant amount exceed 50 percent of the amount 
     apportioned to such State for fiscal year 1997 under section 
     402.
       Any grant made under this section may be used by a State to 
     implement any highway or motor carrier safety program or 
     project eligible for funding under sections 23 U.S.C. 164 and 
     402 or chapter 311 of title 49, United States Code. Upon 
     receipt of a grant allocation under this section, a State 
     would transfer such allocation to the appropriate 
     apportionment or allocation under 23 U.S.C. 164 or 402 or 49 
     U.S.C. 31104, and would administer such funds in accordance 
     with the requirements of these programs.
       Paragraph (a)(3) of this section amends 23 U.S.C. 104(g) to 
     strike the current transferability language for railroad 
     highway crossing and hazard elimination funds, because this 
     language would be replaced by 23 U.S.C. 164(b)(6).
       Subsection (b) of this section amends the analysis for 
     chapter 1 of title 23 by striking the section names relating 
     to sections 130 and 152 and by inserting the section names 
     for new sections 164 and 165.
     Sec. 1025. Fiscal and Administrative Amendments
       Subsection (a) of this section removes three obsolete 
     provisions from 23 U.S.C. 115 which are no longer applicable 
     to the Federal-aid highway program. The eligibility of bond 
     interest for Federal-aid reimbursement, currently in 
     paragraphs 115(b)(2) and (3), has been superseded by section 
     122, which was added by section 311 of the National Highway 
     System Designation Act of 1995. Subsection (c), concerning 
     the treatment of a project built without Federal funds, has 
     no current application.
       Subsection (b) of this section removes an outdated 
     provision from 23 U.S.C. 118 regarding total payments to a 
     State in any fiscal year. In its place, this subsection 
     reinstates a provision that was once in 23 U.S.C. 118 but 
     which was inadvertently omitted when section 118 was amended 
     by section 1020 of the ISTEA. This reinstated provision 
     permits obligations incurred in prior fiscal years that are 
     released in a current fiscal year to be made available for 
     re-obligation in such current fiscal year.
       Subsection (c) of this section technically amends 23 U.S.C. 
     120, concerning the Federal share payable on account of 
     Interstate projects and other title 23 projects, to conform 
     subsections 120(a) and (b) to subsection 120(i), which allows 
     for an increased non-Federal share. The amendment to 120(b) 
     also conforms this subsection to 23 U.S.C. 121, relating to 
     payments made to States for the cost of construction. 
     Subsection (c) also codifies as new subsection 120(j) the 
     current ISTEA section 1044, which allows States to apply toll 
     revenues used for specified capital improvements to their 
     non-Federal share requirement for projects under title 23. 
     This new subsection 120(j) also requires States taking 
     advantage of this credit provision to maintain their current 
     level of expenditures for matching the Federal share of title 
     23 projects.
       Subsection (d) of this section amends 23 U.S.C. 121 to 
     remove a restriction which applies the Federal/non-Federal 
     matching rate to each payment that a State receives. The 
     Federal share requirements for grant programs under the 
     common rule implementing uniform administrative requirements 
     for grants and cooperative agreements generally applies to 
     the total cost of projects, rather than to individual voucher 
     payments. This amendment will therefore make the Federal-aid 
     highway program more compatible with other Federal programs, 
     particularly the Federal mass transportation program, where 
     projects are often administered jointly by the FHWA and the 
     FTA. This subsection also amends 121 to provide more 
     flexibility in administering the Federal share requirement by 
     allowing for adjustments in the Federal share during the 
     development of the project. The remaining changes made by 
     this subsection remove outdated provisions from section 121.
       Subsection (e) strikes 23 U.S.C. 124(b), concerning the 
     construction of toll routes necessary to complete the 
     Interstate System, thereby removing this out of date 
     provision that is no longer necessary because the Interstate 
     System has been completed.
       Subsection (f) strikes 23 U.S.C. 126, thereby removing this 
     outdated provision concerning the use of motor vehicle taxes 
     to fund highway construction projects.
       A long-standing interpretation of 23 U.S.C. 302 has 
     prohibited the reimbursement of certain indirect costs to the 
     States which are generally allowed for grant programs under 
     the common rule establishing uniform requirements for grants 
     and cooperative agreements. The Federal Highway 
     Administration policy has been a contentious issue with State 
     and local governments since other federal agencies permit 
     States to charge indirect costs. Some States have developed a 
     separate indirect costs rate for the highway program. This 
     interpretation creates a particular burden when projects are 
     administered jointly with other programs, such as the Transit 
     Program. Subsection (g) of this section amends section 302 to 
     clarify that section 302 does not limit reimbursement of 
     eligible indirect costs to State and local governments. 
     Subsection 302(b), concerning arrangements with county 
     personnel to supervise the construction of projects on the 
     Federal-aid secondary system, is stricken as obsolete.
       Public Law 87-441 relates to bridge commissions and 
     authorities created by Act of Congress. It provides for 
     Federal approval of such commissions' memberships and 
     requires annual audits. A commission ceases to exist by 
     transferring ownership of the bridge to the States. 
     Initially, five bridge commissions were subject to the act. 
     Today, only one commission remains, the White County Bridge 
     Commission, which operates the New Harmony Bridge across the 
     Wabash River between Indiana and Illinois. While under this 
     act, the FHWA has the authority to appoint commissioners and 
     review the commission's financial operations, we believe that 
     these actions could be administered more effectively and 
     efficiently at the State or local level. Subsection (h), in 
     repealing this 1962 bridge commission act, would remove this 
     unnecessary Federal oversight of the White County Bridge 
     Commission.
     Sec. 1026. Federal Lands Highways Program
     Subsection (a). Definitions
       This subsection amends 23 U.S.C. 101(a) to include a new 
     definition of public lands highways (which excludes forest 
     roads) and it strikes the two definitions currently of public 
     lands highways currently in subsection 101(a).
     Subsection (b). Federal Share Payable
       This section amends 23 U.S.C. 120 by adding a new 
     subsection (j) to enable Federal land managing agencies (such 
     as the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
     and the U.S. Forest Service) to pay the non-Federal share of 
     any Federal-aid highway project where the Federal share of 
     such

[[Page S2458]]

     project is funded under 23 U.S.C. 104 or 144, or under the 
     Federal scenic byways program. This section also adds a new 
     subsection 120(k) to allow Federal Lands Highways Program 
     funds to be used as the non-Federal share of any Federal-aid 
     project providing access to or within Federal or Indian lands 
     and where the Federal share of such project is funded under 
     23 U.S.C. 104 or 144, or under the Federal scenic byways 
     program.
     Subsection (c). Allocations
       Subsection (c) amends section 202 to direct the Secretary 
     to allocate funds for two separate categories: the 
     discretionary public lands program and the forest highway 
     program. These two categories replace the current public 
     lands category, which was comprised of discretionary and 
     forest highways elements. The discretionary public lands 
     highway allocation is contained in subsection 202(b), and a 
     new subsection 202(e) is added for forest highways; this is 
     consistent with the structure of the Federal Lands Highways 
     program prior to the enactment of ISTEA.
     Subsection (d). Availability of Funds
       Subsection (d) makes conforming amendments to section 203 
     to reflect the separate forest highways program and revised 
     public lands highways program. This subsection also provides 
     that the point of obligation (at which the Federal Government 
     is contractually obligated to pay its contribution to a 
     project) for Federal Lands Highways Program projects shall be 
     at the time the Secretary authorizes engineering and related 
     work for any such project, or at the time the Secretary 
     approves the plans, specifications, and estimates for any 
     such project.
     Subsection (e). Planning and Agency Coordination
       Subsection (e) amends subsections 204(a) and (b) to reflect 
     the separate forest highways program and revised public lands 
     highways program and to more accurately reflect the roles of 
     the various Federal agencies in Federal Lands Highways 
     Program projects. It also streamlines the inclusion of 
     Federal Lands Highways Program projects in Statewide and 
     metropolitan transportation improvement programs, providing 
     that the Secretary shall approve the transportation 
     improvement programs. Only regionally significant Federal 
     Lands Highways Program projects will be required to be 
     developed in cooperation with States and metropolitan 
     planning organizations. The Federal Highway Administration's 
     Federal Lands Highways Office would then approve all Federal 
     lands highway transportation improvement programs and submit 
     these to the appropriate States and metropolitan planning 
     organizations for inclusion in their transportation 
     improvement programs without further action.
       Subsection (e) also revises subsection 204(i) to reflect 
     the current public lands program structure and to allow funds 
     to be made available to Federal land managing agencies for 
     transportation planning.
       Subsection (e) also amends section 204 by adding a new 
     subsection (k) to establish a national bridge program for 
     replacing or rehabilitating deficient Indian reservation road 
     bridges. A minimum of $5 million in funds is reserved from 
     the Indian reservation roads program authorization for these 
     bridges. This program has criteria very similar to those of 
     the FHWA's current Indian reservation bridge program under 23 
     U.S.C. 144.
     Sec. 1027. Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways
       Subsection 217(b) of title 23, United States Code, 
     currently permits States to use their NHS apportionments on 
     bicycle transportation facilities on land adjacent to 
     highways on the National Highway System, other than 
     Interstate routes. Subsection (a) of this section amends 23 
     U.S.C. 217(b) to include the construction of pedestrian 
     walkways as an eligible use of States' National Highway 
     System apportionments under the same criteria by which 
     bicycle transportation facilities are eligible. Subsection 
     (a) of this section also amends 217(b) to eliminate the 
     restriction on the use of NHS funds apportioned under 
     104(b)(1) for the construction of bicycle transportation 
     facilities on land adjacent to the Interstate System.
       Subsection 217(e) currently provides for the safe 
     accommodation of bicycles on highway bridges as part of the 
     replacement or rehabilitation of highway bridge decks, except 
     if the bridges are located on highways where access is fully 
     controlled. Subsection (b) of this section amends subsection 
     217(e) to remove this restriction against safely 
     accommodating bicycles on highway bridges located on fully 
     access-controlled highways.
       Subsection (c) of this section revises subsection 217(g) to 
     provide that bicyclists and pedestrians be given due 
     consideration in the comprehensive Statewide and metropolitan 
     planning processes, and that the inclusion of bicycle and 
     pedestrian facilities be considered, where appropriate, in 
     conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of 
     transportation facilities, except where bicycle and 
     pedestrian use are not permitted. Subsection (c) also 
     retains, with minor modification, the requirement currently 
     in subsection 217(g) that transportation plans and projects 
     give due consideration to the safety and continuity of 
     bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
       Subsection 217(h) currently provides that motorized 
     wheelchairs are permitted on trails and pedestrian walkways 
     when both State and local regulations permit them. 
     Subsections (d), (e), and (g) of this section amend 
     subsections 217(h) and (i) to specifically define the type of 
     motorized wheelchairs permitted on trails and pedestrian 
     walkways.
       Subsection (f) redesignates subsection 217(j) as 217(i).
       In addition to adding a definition of ``wheelchair'' to 
     section 217, subsection (g) of this section also retains the 
     current definition of ``bicycle transportation facility'' and 
     adds a definition of ``pedestrian.'' The definitions of 
     ``pedestrian'' and ``wheelchair'' are consistent with the 
     definitions of those terms in the Uniform Vehicle Code (a 
     model uniform law on traffic ordinances that has been adopted 
     in many States) and, in defining a pedestrian to include a 
     mobility impaired person using a manual or motorized 
     wheelchair, they help ensure that both manual and powered 
     wheelchair users have the same mobility rights as 
     pedestrians.
     Sec. 1028. Recreational Trails Program
       This section amends title 23 of the United States Code to 
     add a new section to chapter two. Most of the provisions in 
     this new section, 206, were originally enacted into law as 
     part of the National Recreational Trails Fund Act (NRTFA) 
     which is Part B of Title I of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and were 
     codified in title 16, United States Code. By moving these 
     provisions from title 16 to title 23, this section 
     incorporates the Recreational Trails Program into the 
     Federal-aid Highway Program which is administered by the 
     Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Highway 
     Administration (FHWA) under title 23, U.S.C. This section 
     also removes the Recreational Trails Program from title 16 
     which addresses programs that are usually administered by the 
     Department of the Interior. The provisions in Part B of title 
     I of the ISTEA establishing the National Recreational Trails 
     Advisory Committee are not among the provisions being added 
     to title 23. These provisions are simply being removed and 
     the National Advisory Committee is thereby abolished.
       Subsection (a) amends title 23, U.S.C., to add this new 
     section 206 which is entitled ``Recreational Trails Program" 
     instead of ``National Recreational Trails Program'', its 
     former name.
       The new subsection 206(a) amends the preexisting subsection 
     (a) of the NRTFA by adding the provision that the Secretary 
     of Transportation will also consult with the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, in addition to the Secretary of the Interior, in 
     administering this program because the U.S. Forest Service is 
     a major partner in the Recreational Trails Program.
       The new subsection 206(b) substantially revises the 
     preexisting subsection (c). The original paragraph (c)(1), 
     the transitional provision, expired December 18, 1994, and is 
     eliminated. The former paragraph (c)(2), the permanent 
     provision, is amended to reflect that it is currently in 
     effect, and is redesignated as subsection (b). The 
     preexisting paragraph (c)(3), establishing the Federal share 
     of the cost of Trails Program projects, which was added to 
     the NRTFA by the National Highway System Designation Act of 
     1995 (NHS Act) is moved to subsection 206 (e).
       The new paragraph 206(b)(1) requires a State to designate 
     the State agency or agencies which will be responsible for 
     administering apportionments received under this section. 
     This requirement was previously found in subparagraph 
     (c)(2)(B).
       The new paragraph 206(b)(2) requires a State to establish a 
     State trail advisory committee. This requirement was 
     previously found in the original subparagraph (c)(2)(A), but 
     in the new paragraph 206(b)(2), the term ``board'' is changed 
     to ``committee'' to reflect the name used in most States and 
     to eliminate any confusion as to whether a ``board'' is 
     different than a ``committee.''
       The new subsection 206(c) limits the types of trails and 
     trail-related projects on which funds made available through 
     this program may be obligated. To be eligible for funding, 
     trail projects must be planned and developed in accordance 
     with the laws, policies, and administrative procedures of the 
     State. Subsection (c) also requires States to include trail 
     plans or trail plan elements in metropolitan and/or statewide 
     transportation plans in addition to requiring that these 
     trail plans be consistent with their Statewide Comprehensive 
     Outdoor Recreation Plan required by the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act. These provisions emphasize that trails 
     may form part of the metropolitan and State transportation 
     infrastructure. In addition, subsection (c) provides an 
     illustrative list of permissible activities on which funds 
     made available through this program may be obligated. 
     Subsection (c) also includes a provision requiring that at 
     least 50 percent of the funds received annually by a State be 
     used to facilitate the use of trails for diverse recreational 
     purposes, and one activity specifically encouraged is the 
     renovation of trails to accommodate both motorized and 
     nonmotorized trail use.
       The new subsection 206(d) was formerly located in paragraph 
     (e)(5). This new subsection 206(d) requires States to give 
     priority to project proposals that provide for the redesign, 
     reconstruction, non-routine maintenance, or relocation of 
     existing trails in order to benefit the natural environment 
     or to mitigate the impact on the natural environment. 
     Paragraph (1) amends the preexisting provision to extend this 
     requirement to all trail projects. This change strengthens 
     the environmental aspects of this program

[[Page S2459]]

     and ensures that project proposals for existing trails are 
     given priority over new trail projects. Paragraph (2), 
     formerly at (e)(5)(B), directs the State advisory committees 
     to issue guidance to the States for the purpose of 
     implementing paragraph (1).
       The new subsection 206(e) addresses the Federal share 
     payable for projects under the Recreational Trails Program. 
     This subject was previously addressed in paragraph (c)(3). 
     This new subsection 206(e) first provides generally that the 
     Federal share payable on these projects is not to exceed 50 
     percent. Paragraph 206(e)(1) addresses the fact that the 
     prohibition on matching Federal funds with other Federal 
     funds presents a problem for States where much of the 
     recreational activity, especially motorized use, takes place 
     on Federal lands. Consequently, paragraph (e)(1) allows a 
     Federal agency sponsoring a project to provide funding for 
     that project without those funds being credited as part of 
     the Federal share to be covered by the Secretary of 
     Transportation. However, this provision still requires State, 
     local, or private sponsors to provide some matching funds. 
     The new paragraph (e)(2) allows seven specific Federal grant 
     programs to be used by project sponsors to meet non-Federal 
     matching fund requirements. Trails projects are excellent 
     training and work opportunities for participants in youth 
     corp programs and work training programs. This provision will 
     allow States to meet training and employment goals and the 
     goals of the Trails Program simultaneously.
       The new paragraph 206(e)(3) establishes a new programmatic 
     non-Federal share that allows States to satisfy non-Federal 
     share matching requirements on a programmatic level rather 
     than on a project-by-project basis. The former subparagraph 
     (c)(3)(B) would have established a programmatic non-Federal 
     share beginning in fiscal year 2001 and would have resulted 
     in a Federal share of approximately 83 percent for 
     Recreational Trails projects. Under the new paragraph (e)(3), 
     the programmatic non-Federal share goes into effect 
     immediately and the Federal share is set at 50 percent. The 
     programmatic non-Federal share provision gives the States 
     flexibility to receive credit for the non-Federal matching 
     funds which they are able to raise in excess of the required 
     non-Federal matching share on some projects. This credit may 
     be used by the States to cover part of the non-Federal 
     matching share on other projects for which they have 
     difficulty raising enough matching funds.
       The new paragraph 206(e)(4) establishes a Federal share 
     payable for State administrative costs which conforms with 
     the Federal share payable for State costs incurred in 
     administering projects under other Federal-aid highway 
     programs. This paragraph clarifies that the 50 percent 
     limitation on the Federal share payable for projects under 
     the Trails Program does not apply to State administrative 
     costs. This new paragraph establishes the Federal share 
     payable for State administrative costs at 80 percent or 
     higher in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 120(b). The Federal share 
     is set higher than the Federal share payable for project 
     costs in order to lessen the burden of the Federal mandates 
     associated with this program. However, this paragraph does 
     require the States to cover some of the cost because this 
     program is voluntary. In addition, this provision reflects 
     the intent of the Federal government not to cover 100 percent 
     of the cost of statewide trail planning efforts because non-
     Federal funding sources are available for many trails.
       The new subsection 206(f) lists different activities for 
     which a State may not use funds apportioned to it under 
     section 206. These provisions were, for the most part, 
     formerly found in paragraph (e)(2). However, the new 
     subsection (f) does include one new item. The new paragraph 
     (f)(5) adds to the list of uses not permitted, funding of 
     railroad right-of-way development that would encourage users 
     to engage in any form of recreational activity on or between 
     railroad tracks. The term ``railroad tracks'' is intended to 
     include active and inactive lines and snow-covered tracks. 
     The addition of this item to the list is intended to 
     discourage use of railroad tracks to engage in recreational 
     activity including walking, hiking, horseback riding, cross 
     country skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, rail biking, and 
     use of a motor car.
       The new subsection 206(g) is a new provision which 
     incorporates some of the program management elements of the 
     former subsection (e) and adds some other paragraphs to 
     clarify these provisions and facilitate program management. 
     Paragraph (g)(1) provides that a project sponsor may donate, 
     either from a private or public source, funds, materials, 
     services, or right-of-way for the purposes of a project 
     eligible for assistance under this section. Private donations 
     are allowed under 49 CFR 18.24 and 23 U.S.C. 323, as amended 
     by the NHS Act, but this new paragraph clarifies the 
     legislative authority regarding private donations to the 
     Trails Program and establishes authority regarding donations 
     from Federal project sponsors, as well.
       New paragraph (g)(2) provides that a project funded under 
     this section is intended to enhance recreational opportunity 
     and, as such, is not subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 
     303, establishing a U.S. policy on lands, wildlife, and 
     waterfowl refuges and historic sites, or 23 U.S.C. 138, 
     which addresses the preservation of parklands, because 
     implementation of a Recreational Trails project would not 
     qualify as ``using'' a public park, recreation area, 
     wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site for 
     purposes of those laws. As a result, Recreational Trails 
     Program projects are exempt from the ``Section 4(f)'' 
     requirements calling for analyses as to whether a 
     reasonable and feasible alternative to a project exists.
       New paragraph (g)(3) provides that a State may treat funds 
     apportioned to it under this section as Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund apportionments for the purposes of section 
     6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. This 
     provision was formerly located at paragraph (e)(8). Section 
     6(f)(3) requires that projects funded under the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund Act remain in use as public outdoor 
     recreational facilities in perpetuity. Any conversion would 
     require approval of the Secretary of the Interior.
       The new paragraph (g)(4) requires that, before making 
     apportionments available for work on recreational trails, a 
     State obtain written assurances, from the owner of any land 
     that would be affected by the work, that the land owner will 
     cooperate with the State. In addition, new paragraph (g)(4) 
     requires that any use of a State's apportionments on private 
     lands must be accompanied by an easement or other legally 
     binding agreement that ensures public access to those 
     recreational trail improvements. This provision was 
     previously located in paragraph (f)(2).
       The new subsection 206(h) provides definitions for terms 
     used in the new section 206. Formerly, the definition section 
     was located in subsection (g). The definition of ``Fund" as 
     referring to the National Recreational Trails Trust Fund is 
     removed because the Recreational Trails Program is no longer 
     funded through this trust fund which is also being abolished. 
     The Recreational Trails Program will now be funded through a 
     direct authorization of funds from the Highway Trust Fund. 
     Subsection (h) also deletes the definition for ``Nonhighway 
     recreational fuel'' because it is no longer needed. The 
     definition of ``Recreational trail'' from the former 
     definitions section is included in the new subsection 206(h), 
     but is revised to reorganize the uses into a logical order 
     and to add several new uses. In addition, this revision of 
     the recreational trail definition removes a reference to the 
     National Recreation Trails designated under the National 
     Trails System Act because that reference is unnecessary. The 
     definition of ``Motorized recreation'' used in the former 
     subsection (g) is revised to clarify that motorized 
     wheelchair use is not motorized recreational vehicles use. 
     This new definition is consistent with the Uniform Vehicle 
     Code. The new subsection 206(h) also includes a definition 
     for the term ``eligible State'' for purposes of subsection 
     104(h) of 23 U.S.C. which establishes the formula to be used 
     in apportioning funds authorized to be appropriated for the 
     Recreational Trails Program. The definition for ``eligible 
     State'' is the same as was previously used except that 
     subsection (h) incorporates the title 23 definition of State.
       Subsection (b) contains several conforming amendments. 
     First, this subsection strikes part B of title I of ISTEA, 
     since this part is replaced by new sections 206 and 207 of 
     title 23, United States code. In addition, subsection (b) 
     revises the analysis for Chapter 2 of 23 U.S.C. to reflect 
     the addition of new sections 206 and 207.
     Sec. 1029. International Highway Transportation Outreach 
         Program
       Subsection (a) amends section 325 of title 23, U.S.C., to 
     clarify that the Secretary is authorized to conduct 
     activities aimed at improving United States' firms access to 
     foreign markets. Examples of these activities include 
     gathering and disseminating information about foreign market 
     opportunities and foreign industries, and encouraging the 
     adoption abroad of U.S. technical standards.
       Subsection (b) revises subsection 325(c) of such title to 
     specify that funds deposited in the current special account 
     with the Secretary of the Treasury and funds available to 
     carry out this section can be used to reimburse the FHWA for 
     the salaries of its employees and the costs incurred by them 
     in assisting U.S. firms, with technical services unavailable 
     in the U.S. private sector, to develop and carry out proposal 
     for foreign transportation projects. These funding sources 
     may also be used to cover other necessary promotional, 
     travel, reception, and representation expenses.
       Subsection (c) adds a new subsection to 23 U.S.C. 325 to 
     enable States to use their State Planning and Research 
     Program funds for international highway transportation 
     outreach activities under section 325.
     Sec. 1030. Trade Corridor and Border Crossing Incentive 
         Grants; Border Gateway Pilot Program
       This section directs the Secretary to provide grants for 
     planning and project implementation to improve transportation 
     at international border crossings and along major trade 
     transportation corridors. The section authorizes $45,000,000 
     annually from the Highway Trust Fund to support the 
     activities directed. With the exception of specific sums 
     authorized for planning and coordination purposes under 
     subsections (a) and (b) of this section, all remaining funds 
     authorized under this section shall be used for project 
     implementation.
       Paragraph (a)(1) of this section directs the Secretary to 
     make annual incentive grants to States and MPOs that share a 
     common border with Canada or Mexico for the purpose of 
     performing planning for efficient movement of people and 
     goods at and through international border gateways.

[[Page S2460]]

       Paragraph (a)(2) requires the recipient, as a condition of 
     receiving the grant, to assure the Secretary that it is or 
     will commit to be engaged in joint planning with its 
     counterpart agency in Canada or Mexico.
       Paragraph (b)(1) directs the Secretary to make grants to 
     States for the purpose of performing planning for the 
     efficient movement of goods along and within international 
     and interstate trade corridors.
       Paragraph (b)(2) requires grant recipients to submit to the 
     Secretary plans for corridor improvements. Corridor planning 
     must be coordinated with transportation planning being 
     done by the States and MPOs along the corridor and, where 
     appropriate, with transportation planning being done in 
     Mexico and Canada.
       Paragraph (b)(3) authorizes 2 or more States to enter into 
     agreements for purposes of coordinated trade transportation 
     corridor planning and administration.
       Subsection (c) establishes a new border gateway pilot 
     program by authorizing the Secretary to make grants to States 
     and others to fund the development and implementation of 
     coordinated and comprehensive border crossing plans and 
     programs. The intent of this subsection is to promote the 
     efficient and safe use of existing border crossings within 
     defined international gateways, prior to major new 
     infrastructure investment, and to focus all available 
     resources on implementation of a fully integrated and 
     cooperatively developed plan, with special emphasis on full 
     coordination with border inspection agencies, including those 
     in Canada and Mexico.
       Gateways are defined in ``Assessment of Border Crossings 
     and Transportation Corridors for North American Trade, Report 
     to Congress pursuant to Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 Public Law 102-240, Sections 1089 and 
     6015'' as ``groupings of border crossings defined by 
     proximity and similarity of trade.'' The gateways identified 
     in this report are: Maine; Montreal South; Eastern New York; 
     Niagara; Michigan; Upper Plains; Central Plains; Eastern 
     Washington/Rocky Mountains; Pacific Coast; South Texas; West 
     Texas; Arizona; and California. Other defined gateways may be 
     included at the discretion of the Secretary.
       Paragraph (c)(1) authorizes the Secretary to make grants to 
     States and others sharing a common border with Canada or 
     Mexico for any project to improve the movement of people and 
     goods at and across such border.
       Paragraph (c)(2) limits the maximum number of total grants 
     under this pilot program at eight (including at least two on 
     the U.S./Mexico border and two at the U.S./Canada border) and 
     limits the maximum dollar total of any single grant to $40 
     million. Projects may vary in scope, with varying degrees of 
     Federal participation. Approval should not be given to fund 
     any one project which will exhaust the entire annual 
     authorization for this pilot program.
       Paragraph (c)(3) lists the grant eligibility criteria for 
     this pilot program. In recognition of the potential delays 
     associated with border clearance and vehicle/driver review 
     processes, each project proposal shall reflect cooperation 
     and coordination with the U.S. Federal Inspection Services 
     and their counterparts across the Mexican or Canadian border, 
     as appropriate. Grants shall be made on the basis of the 
     expected reduction in commercial and other travel time 
     through a major international gateway as a result of the 
     project; improvements in vehicle safety at and approaching 
     the crossings within the gateway; the degree of funding 
     leveraging anticipated through this program, including the 
     use of innovative financing, and funding provided under other 
     sections of this Act (which shall not be subject to the 
     limits of this section); the degree of binational involvement 
     in the project; the degree of applicability of innovative and 
     problem solving techniques which might be applicable to other 
     border crossings; and a demonstrated local commitment to 
     implement and sustain continuing comprehensive border 
     improvement programs. Project proposals must be limited, to 
     the greatest extent possible, to improvements to existing 
     border crossings within defined gateways. Construction of new 
     facilities, including bridges, shall not be considered unless 
     and until all options for efficient use of existing 
     facilities has been demonstrated.
       Subsection (d) authorizes $45 million in Highway Trust Fund 
     monies for this border crossing pilot program in each of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2003. This subsection also sets the 
     annual amount of the grants for the purposes of performing 
     border gateway planning at $1,400,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2003. The maximum amount any State or MPO 
     may receive in grants under this section shall not exceed 
     $100,000. These planning grants should be used to supplement 
     State planning and research, planning, and other funds that 
     are used to support long-range planning and programming which 
     are to be implemented using the border gateway pilot program 
     funds and other funds such as State and local funds, NHS, and 
     STP. Subsection (d) also makes $3,000,000 available in each 
     of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 for trade corridor planning 
     incentive grants under this section.
       Subsection (e) provides that border gateway funds 
     authorized under this section may be used as the non-Federal 
     match for any border gateway project funded with other 
     Federal-aid highway funds, provided that the amount of border 
     gateway funds cannot exceed 50 percent of project costs. 
     Subsection (e) also provides that the Federal share payable 
     on account of any border crossing or trade corridor planning 
     incentive grant shall be determined in accordance with 
     section 120 of title 23, United States Code.
     Sec. 1031. Appalachian Development Highway System
       This section amends 40 U.S.C. App. 201, the Appalachian 
     Regional Development Act of 1965, to authorize $2.19 billion 
     for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to fund the continued 
     construction of the Appalachian development highway system in 
     the 13 States that comprise the Appalachian region.
       Subsection (a) of this section amends subsection 201(a), 
     which currently provides that all provisions of title 23 
     apply to the development highways funded under this 
     provision, to include an exemption from the title 23 
     provision (23 U.S.C. 118) that all apportioned or allocated 
     funds that have not been obligated by the end of four years 
     shall lapse. As revised, subsection 201(a) provides that 
     funds not expended by a State within four years shall be 
     released to the Appalachian Regional Commission for 
     reallocation to States within the Appalachian region, rather 
     than lapsing.
       Subsection (b) of this section amends subsection 201(g) to 
     authorize appropriations from the Highway Trust Fund for 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2003 (and also provides contract 
     authority), and an equivalent amount of obligation authority, 
     to fund the continued construction of the Appalachian 
     development highway system in accordance with section 201. 
     This subsection also limits eligibility for these funds to 
     the development highway system authorized as of September 30, 
     1996. However, the States of the Appalachian region, the 
     Secretary, and the Appalachian Regional Commission may 
     agree to make alterations to the September 30, 1996, 
     approved system, and such altered routes shall be eligible 
     for funding under this section.
       Subsection (c) of this section amends paragraph 201(h)(1) 
     to raise the Federal share payable on account of any pre-
     financed (i.e., advance construction) development highway 
     project to 80 percent of the cost of such project, which is 
     the same Federal share payable for conventionally funded 
     development highway projects under subsection 201(f). This 
     amendment enables States to use the advance construction 
     financing method of paragraph 201(h)(1) under the same 
     Federal matching ratio as for all other development highway 
     projects.
       Subsection (d) of this section authorizes the deduction of 
     up to 3.75 percent of the funds authorized under new 
     paragraph 201(g)(2) for the expenses of the Appalachian 
     Regional Commission in administering such funds.
     Sec. 1032. Value Pricing Pilot Program
       Subsection (a) of this section amends subsection 1012(b) of 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     to reflect the change in the name of the congestion pricing 
     pilot program to the value pricing pilot program.
       Subsection (b) increases the number of pilot programs 
     eligible for funding under subsection 1012(b) from 5 to 15.
       Subsection (c) of this section amends paragraph 1012(b)(2) 
     to increase the Federal share payable on any project funded 
     under this provision from 80 percent to 100 percent.
       Subsection (d) of this section further amends paragraph 
     1012(b)(2) to reflect administrative interpretations of this 
     paragraph that have made by the Federal Highway 
     Administration, shared with the appropriate congressional 
     committees, and published in the Federal Register. 
     Specifically, paragraph 1012(b)(2) is amended to provide that 
     the Secretary shall fund pre-implementation costs of value 
     pricing programs and that the 3-year funding limitation 
     included in this paragraph commences once the project is 
     implemented, and therefore does not apply to the pre-
     implementation stage of a project (which could stretch out 
     for several years).
       Subsection (e) makes necessary conforming amendments to 
     subsection 1012(b) to reflect that each cooperative agreement 
     entered into by the Secretary under paragraph 1012(b)(1) 
     would cover a specific value pricing program for the area 
     encompassed by the cooperative agreement. Each program could, 
     in turn, cover one or more specific value pricing projects 
     within that area. This subsection also makes a purely 
     technical correction to the list of items to be examined and 
     reported on to the Congress by the Secretary.
       Subsection (f) amends paragraph 1012(b)(3) to expand the 
     eligible use of toll revenues generated by any pilot project 
     under this subsection from any eligible use under title 23, 
     United States Code, to any surface transportation purpose.
       Subsection (g) removes the 3-program cap on the number of 
     value pricing programs on which the Secretary shall allow the 
     use of tolls on the Interstate System, thereby enabling State 
     and local governments and public authorities to collect tolls 
     on any value pricing pilot program funded under this section.
       Subsection (h) adds one item, the effects of value pricing 
     projects on low income drivers, to the list of items on which 
     the Secretary is to report to the Congress under paragraph 
     1012(b)(5). This subsection also adds a new paragraph to 
     section 1012(b) to provide that any value pricing pilot 
     program funded under this subsection shall give full 
     consideration to the potential effects of value pricing 
     projects on drivers of all income levels

[[Page S2461]]

     and shall develop mitigation measures to deal with potential 
     adverse effects on low income drivers, thereby making income 
     equity a key consideration in the development of pilot 
     projects.
       Subsection (i) revises paragraph 1012(b)(6) to reauthorize 
     Federal-aid highway funding for this program at a level of 
     $14 million for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 out of 
     the Highway Trust Fund, and provides that, in the event such 
     funds remain unallocated or allocated and unobligated after 
     four years, a State's unallocated or unobligated amounts 
     shall be transferred to the State's STP apportionment. This 
     subsection also eliminates the current funding cap on 
     individual projects.
       Subsection (j) provides an exemption from the HOV-2 
     requirement of subsection 102(b) of title 23, United States 
     Code, by permitting single occupancy vehicles to operate in 
     high occupancy vehicle lanes if such vehicles are part of a 
     value pricing program funded under subsection 1012(b).
       Subsection (k) ensures that this program will continue to 
     have contract authority.
       Sec. 1033. Highway Use Tax Evasion Projects
       Subsection (a) of this section technically amends 
     subsection 1040(a) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 to correct the reference to the 
     funding provision of section 1040.
       Subsection (b) strikes subsection 1040(d) to eliminate the 
     requirements for the Secretary of Transportation to annually 
     report to Congress on motor fuel tax enforcement activities 
     under this section and the expenditure of funds made 
     available to carry out this section, and for the Secretary of 
     the Treasury to annually report to Congress on the increased 
     enforcement activities to be financed with the funds 
     allocated by the Secretary of Transportation to the Internal 
     Revenue Service under subsection 1040(a). The Department has 
     found that other available avenues for reporting on program 
     successes, such as congressional hearings held on this 
     program, have been very effective. Subsection (b) also 
     strikes subsection 1040(e), which requires that the Secretary 
     of Transportation, in consultation with the Internal Revenue 
     Service, study the feasibility and desirability of using dye 
     and markers to aid in motor fuel tax enforcement activities 
     and report to Congress on this study by December 18, 1992. 
     This study has been completed and its results submitted to 
     Congress, so this subsection is no longer necessary. 
     Subsection (b) also deletes the out-of-date funding 
     authorization language for fiscal years 1992 through 1997, 
     which has been replaced by subsection (d) of this section.
       Subsection (c) redesignates subsection 1040(g) as 
     subsection 1040(e).
       Subsection (d) of this section amends section 1040 to 
     authorize $5 million annually in Highway Trust Fund monies 
     for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to continue joint 
     Federal Highway Administration/Internal Revenue Service/State 
     motor fuel tax compliance projects across the country. The 
     multi-State nature of the enforcement and uniformity efforts 
     developed under this pilot project in ISTEA has been 
     important to its effectiveness. Continued Federal funding at 
     the same level authorized in ISTEA will help ensure that this 
     very successful, coordinated regional and national approach 
     to combating fuel tax fraud can continue.
       Sec. 1034. Public Notice of Railbanking
       This section would require that public notice be given once 
     an application for interim trail use of a railroad right-of-
     way has been filed. Currently, a notice must be published in 
     local newspapers announcing a rail abandonment. However, 
     there is no notice requirement when a railroad right-of-way 
     is proposed to be converted to a trail. This provision would 
     allow all members of the community to work together as equal 
     partners in establishing such trails.


                        TITLE II--HIGHWAY SAFETY

       Sec. 2001. Short Title
       Sec. 2001 provides that title II may be cited as the 
     ``Highway Safety Act of 1997''.
       Sec. 2002. Highway Safety Programs
       Sec. 2002 continues the existing State and community 
     highway safety program, established under Section 402 of 
     title 23, United States Code, and amends the program as 
     follows:
       Subsection (a), ``Uniform Guidelines,'' and Subsection (b), 
     ``Administrative Requirements,'' make several technical and 
     conforming amendments to Sections 402(a) and (b).
       Subsection (c), ``Apportionment of Funds,'' makes one 
     technical correction to Section 402(c) and one substantive 
     amendment. To increase the effective delivery of the Section 
     402 program to the more than 500 Federally recognized Indian 
     tribes, an amendment is provided to raise the minimum annual 
     apportionment to the Indians (through the Secretary of 
     Interior) from one-half of one percent to three-fourths of 
     one percent of the total apportionment under the section.
       Subsection (d), ``Application in Indian Country,'' amends 
     Section 402 to allow Section 402 grants to be made to Indian 
     tribes in ``Indian Country.''
       Subsection (e), ``Rulemaking Process,'' amends Section 
     402(j), which requires the periodic identification, by 
     rulemaking, of highway safety programs that are most 
     effective in reducing traffic crashes, injuries, and deaths. 
     Instead of requiring the States to direct the resources of 
     the national program to the fixed areas identified by this 
     rulemaking process, the amendment directs that the States to 
     consider these highly effective programs when developing 
     their highway safety programs.
       Subsection (f), ``Safety Incentive Grants,'' proposes to 
     add four new safety incentive programs concerning alcohol-
     impaired driving countermeasures, occupant protection, 
     highway safety data, and drugged driving countermeasures 
     (described below) to Section 402, together with a new 
     provision making various procedures applicable to each of 
     those programs.
       Section 402(k), ``Safety Incentive Grants,'' replaces an 
     obsolete subsection (k) and makes the following applicable to 
     each of the four incentive programs: (1) the grants for the 
     incentive programs may only be used by the States to 
     implement and enforce, as appropriate, the programs for which 
     the grants are made; (2) no grant may be made to a State in 
     any fiscal year unless the State enters into an agreement 
     with the Secretary to ensure that the State will maintain its 
     aggregate expenditures from all other sources for the actions 
     for which a grant is provided at or above the level of such 
     expenditures in its two fiscal years prior to the date of 
     enactment of the subsection; and (3) basic or supplemental 
     grants applicable under the programs, in any one of these two 
     grant categories, would be available to the States for a 
     maximum of six years, beginning after September 30, 1997. 
     States that meet certain criteria would receive grants that 
     would be funded through a declining Federal share--75 percent 
     for the first and second years, 50 percent for the third and 
     fourth years, and 25 percent for the fifth and sixth years.
       Section 402(l), ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving 
     Countermeasures,'' amends Section 402 to establish a 
     comprehensive drunk and impaired driving incentive program to 
     encourage States to increase their level of effort and 
     implement effective programs aimed at deterring the drunk 
     driver. The new program, which continues the Department's 
     strong emphasis on deterring drinking and driving, is similar 
     in structure to that of the existing Section 410 drunk 
     driving prevention incentive program, established under 
     Section 410 of Title 23, United States Code, and would 
     replace the Section 410 program when its terms expire at the 
     end of fiscal year 1997.
       A State may establish its eligibility for one or more of 
     three basic alcohol- impaired-driving countermeasure grants--
     A, B, and C--in the fiscal year in which the grant is 
     received, by adopting or demonstrating certain criteria, as 
     appropriate, to the satisfaction of the Secretary.
       To establish eligibility for the first basic grant A under 
     paragraph (1), a State must adopt or demonstrate at least 4 
     of 5 of the following: (1) an administrative driver's license 
     suspension or revocation system for drunk drivers; (2) an 
     effective system for preventing drivers under age 21 from 
     obtaining alcoholic beverages; (3)(A) a statewide program for 
     stopping motor vehicles on a nondiscriminatory, lawful basis 
     to determine whether the operators are driving while under 
     the influence of alcohol, or (B) a statewide impaired driving 
     Special Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) that includes 
     heavy emphasis on publicity for the program; (4) effective 
     sanctions for repeat offenders convicted of driving while 
     intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol; and 
     (5) a three-tiered graduated licensing system for young 
     drivers that includes nighttime driving restrictions, 
     requiring that all vehicle occupants to be properly 
     restrained, and providing that all drivers under age 21 
     are subject to zero tolerance at .02 percent BAC or 
     greater while operating a motor vehicle.
       To establish eligibility for the second basic grant B under 
     paragraph (2), a State must adopt both an administrative 
     driver's license suspension or revocation system for drunk 
     drivers, and a law that provides for a per se law setting .08 
     BAC level as intoxicated.
       To establish eligibility for the third basic grant C under 
     paragraph (3), a State must demonstrate that its percentage 
     of fatally injured drivers with 0.10 percent or greater blood 
     alcohol concentration has both: (1) decreased in each of the 
     3 most recent calendar years for which statistics for 
     determining such percentages are available; and (2) been 
     lower than the average percentage for all States in each of 
     such calendar years.
       States that meet the criteria for a basic grant under 
     paragraphs (1), (2) or (3) would receive, for each grant, up 
     to 15 percent (up to 30 percent if they qualify for two, and 
     up to 45 percent if they qualify for all three) of their 
     fiscal year 1997 apportionment under Section 402 of Title 23, 
     United States Code.
       States that meet the criteria for any one or more of the 
     three basic grants also would be eligible to receive 
     supplemental grants for one or more of the following: (1) 
     making it unlawful to possess open containers of alcohol in 
     the passenger area of motor vehicles (excepting charter 
     buses) while on the road; (2) adopting a mandatory BAC 
     testing program for drivers in crashes involving fatalities 
     or serious injuries; (3) videotaping of drunk drivers by 
     police; (4) adopting and enforcing a ``zero tolerance'' law 
     providing that any person under age 21 with a BAC of .02 or 
     greater when driving a motor vehicle shall be deemed driving 
     while intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol, 
     and further providing for a minimum suspension of the 
     person's driver's license of not less than 30 days; (5) 
     requiring a self-sustaining impaired driving program; (6) 
     enacting and enforcing a law to reduce incidents of driving 
     with suspended licenses; (7) demonstrating

[[Page S2462]]

     an effective tracking system for alcohol-impaired drivers; 
     (8) requiring an assessment of persons convicted of abuse of 
     controlled substances, and the assignment of treatment for 
     all DWI and DUI offenders; (9) implementing a program to 
     acquire passive alcohol sensors to be used by police in 
     detecting drunk drivers; and (10) enacting and enforcing a 
     law that provides for effective penalties or other 
     consequences for the sale or provision of alcoholic beverages 
     to a person under 21. For each supplemental grant criterion 
     that is met, a State would receive, in no more than two 
     fiscal years, an amount up to 5 percent of its Section 
     402 apportionment for fiscal year 1997. Definitions are 
     provided for ``alcoholic beverage,'' ``controlled 
     substances,'' ``motor vehicle,'' and ``open alcoholic 
     beverage container.''
       Section 402(m), ``Occupant Protection Program,'' amends 
     Section 402 to establish a new occupant protection incentive 
     program to encourage States to increase their level of effort 
     and implement effective laws and programs aimed at increasing 
     safety belt and child safety seat use.
       A State may establish its eligibility for one or both of 
     two basic occupant protection grants--A and B--in the fiscal 
     year in which the grant is received, by adopting or 
     demonstrating certain criteria, as appropriate, to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary.
       To establish eligibility for the first basic grant A under 
     paragraph (1), a State must adopt or demonstrate at least 4 
     of the following: (1) a law that makes unlawful throughout 
     the State the operation of a passenger motor vehicle whenever 
     a person in the front seat of the vehicle (other than a child 
     who is secured in a child restraint system) does not have a 
     safety belt properly secured about the person's body; (2) a 
     provision in its safety belt use law that provides for its 
     primary enforcement or provides for the imposition of penalty 
     points against a person's diver's license for its violation; 
     (3) a law requiring children up to 4 years of age to be 
     properly secured in a child safety seat in all appropriate 
     seating positions in all passenger motor vehicles; (4) a 
     minimum fine of at least $25 for violations of its safety 
     belt use law and a minimum fine of at least $25 for 
     violations of its child passenger protection law; and (5) a 
     statewide occupant protection Special Traffic Enforcement 
     Program (STEP) that includes heavy emphasis on publicity for 
     the program.
       To establish eligibility for the second basic grant B under 
     paragraph (2), a State must: (1) demonstrate a statewide 
     safety belt use rate in both front outboard seating positions 
     in all vehicle types covered by the State's safety belt use 
     law, of 80 percent or higher in each of the first three years 
     a grant is received, and of 85 percent or higher in each of 
     the fourth, fifth, and sixth years a grant is received; and; 
     (2) follow safety belt use survey methods which conform to 
     guidelines issued by the Secretary ensuring that such 
     measurements are accurate and representative.
       States that meet the criteria for a basic grant under 
     paragraphs (1) or (2) would receive, for each grant, up to 20 
     percent (up to 40 percent if they qualify for both) of their 
     fiscal year 1997 apportionment under Section 402 of Title 23, 
     United States Code.
       States that meet the criteria for one or both of the two 
     basic grants also would be eligible to receive supplemental 
     grants for one or more of the following: (1) requiring the 
     imposition of penalty points against a driver's license for 
     violations of child passenger protection requirements; (2) 
     having no non-medical exemptions in effect in their safety 
     belt and child passenger protection laws; (3) demonstrating 
     implementation of a statewide comprehensive child occupant 
     protection education program that includes education about 
     proper seating positions for children in air bag equipped 
     motor vehicles and how to reduce the improper use of child 
     restraint systems; (4) having in effect a law that prohibits 
     persons from riding in the open bed of a pickup truck; and 
     (5) having in effect a law that requires safety belt use by 
     all rear-seat passengers in all passenger motor vehicles with 
     a rear seat. For each supplemental grant criterion that is 
     met, a State would receive an amount up to 5 percent of its 
     Section 402 apportionment for fiscal year 1997. Definitions 
     are provided for ``child safety seat,'' ``motor vehicle,'' 
     ``multipurpose passenger vehicle,'' ``passenger car,'' 
     ``passenger motor vehicle,'' and ``safety belt.''
       Section 402(n), ``State Highway Safety Data Improvements,'' 
     amends Section 402 to establish a new incentive program to 
     encourage States to take effective actions to improve the 
     timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, and 
     accessibility of the data they need to identify the 
     priorities for State and local highway and traffic safety 
     programs, to evaluate the effectiveness of such efforts, and 
     to link these data, including traffic records, together and 
     with other data systems within the State, such as medical and 
     economic data. Currently, much of the State data in these 
     areas are inadequate or unavailable. The Department believes 
     that the new incentive program under this subsection is vital 
     to the ability of the States to determine and achieve their 
     highway safety performance goals.
       A State would be eligible for a first-year grant in a 
     fiscal year under paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (n) if it 
     demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that it 
     has (1) established a Highway Safety Data and Traffic Records 
     Coordinating Committee with a multi-disciplinary membership 
     including the administrators, collectors, and users of such 
     data (including the public health, injury control, and motor 
     carrier communities) of highway safety and traffic records 
     databases; (2) completed a recent (within the last five 
     years) highway safety data and traffic records assessment or 
     audit of its highway safety data and traffic records system; 
     and (3) initiated the development of a multi-year highway 
     safety data and traffic records strategic plan to be approved 
     by the Highway Safety Data and Traffic Records Coordinating 
     Committee that identifies and prioritizes the State's highway 
     safety data and traffic records needs and goals, and that 
     identifies performance-based measures by which progress 
     toward those goals will be determined.
       A State also would be eligible for a first-year grant in a 
     fiscal year under paragraph (1)(B) of subsection (n) if it 
     provides, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, (1) 
     certification that it has established a Highway Safety Data 
     and Traffic Records Coordinating Committee with a multi-
     disciplinary membership including the administrators or 
     managers of highway safety and traffic records databases and 
     representatives of the collectors and users of these data; 
     (2) certification that it has completed a recent (within the 
     last five years) highway safety data and traffic records 
     assessment or audit of their highway safety data and traffic 
     records system; (3) a multi-year plan that identifies and 
     prioritizes the State's highway safety data and traffic 
     records needs and goals, that specifies how its incentive 
     funds for the fiscal year will be used to address those needs 
     and the goals of the plan, and that identifies performance-
     based measures by which progress toward those goals will be 
     determined; and (4) certification that the Highway Safety 
     Data and Traffic Records Coordinating Committee continues to 
     operate and support the multi-year plan described under 
     paragraph (1)(B).
       A State that meets the criteria for a first-year grant 
     under paragraph (1)(A) would receive an amount equal to 
     $125,000, based on available appropriations. A State that 
     meets the criteria for a first-year grant under paragraph 
     (1)(B) would receive an amount equal to a proportional amount 
     of the amount apportioned to the State for fiscal year 1997 
     under Section 402 of title 23, U.S. Code, except that no 
     State would receive less than $225,000, based on available 
     appropriations.
       A State would be eligible for a grant in any fiscal year 
     succeeding the first fiscal year in which they receive a 
     State highway safety data and traffic records grant if the 
     State, to the Secretary's satisfaction: (1) submits or 
     updates a multi-year plan that identifies and prioritizes the 
     State's highway safety data and traffic records needs and 
     goals, that specifies how its incentive funds for the fiscal 
     year will be used to address those needs and the goals of the 
     plan, and that identifies performance-based measures by which 
     progress toward those goals will be determined; (2) certifies 
     that its Highway Safety Data and Traffic Records Coordinating 
     Committee continues to support the multi-year plan; and (3) 
     reports annually on its progress in implementing the multi-
     year plan.
       A State that meets the criteria for a succeeding-year grant 
     in any fiscal year would receive an amount equal to a 
     proportional amount of the amount apportioned to the State 
     for fiscal year 1997 under Section 402 of title 23, U.S. 
     Code, except that no State shall receive less than $225,000, 
     based on available appropriations.
       Section 402(o), ``Drugged Driving Countermeasures,'' amends 
     Section 402 to establish a new incentive program to encourage 
     States to take effective actions to improve State drugged 
     driving laws and related programs. State drugged driving laws 
     are inconsistent and frequently difficult to enforce. They 
     often seriously hamper attempts by law enforcement and courts 
     to deter drugged driving. The Department believes that the 
     new incentive grant program under this subsection, modeled 
     after the Department of Transportation's successful Section 
     410 alcohol-impaired driving incentive grant program under 
     title 23 U.S. Code, is essential to improve State drugged 
     driving laws and related activities. This incentive program 
     is separate from subsection (l)'s incentive program for 
     alcohol-impaired driving, which revises and replaces Section 
     410, so that drugged driving laws and activities receive the 
     more focused attention they deserve.
       A State would be eligible for a grant in a fiscal year 
     under subsection (o) if it demonstrates, to the satisfaction 
     of the Secretary, 5 or more of the following 9 criteria: (1) 
     enact zero tolerance laws that make it illegal to drive with 
     any amount of an illicit drug in the driver's body; (2) 
     establish that it

[[Page S2463]]

     is illegal to drive while impaired by any drug (licit or 
     illicit); (3) allow drivers to be tested for drugs if there 
     is probable cause to suspect impairment; (4) suspend the 
     driver's license administratively (without criminal 
     proceedings) for persons driving under the influence of 
     drugs; (5) suspend the driver's license for persons convicted 
     of other drug offenses, even if not related to driving; (6) 
     incorporate drug use and drugged driving provisions into a 
     graduated licensing system for beginning drivers; (7) 
     actively enforce and publicize drugged driving laws; (8) 
     provide an intervention program for drugged drivers that 
     incorporates assessment and drug education, counseling, or 
     other treatment as needed; and (9) provide drug education 
     information to persons applying for or renewing drivers' 
     licenses and include drug-related questions on drivers' 
     license examinations.
       A State that meets the criteria for a grant under 
     subsection (o) would receive an amount up to 20 percent of 
     its Section 402 apportionment for fiscal year 1997. 
     Definitions are provided for ``alcoholic beverage,'' 
     ``controlled substances,'' and ``motor vehicle.''
       Subsection (g), ``Conforming Amendment,'' repeals Section 
     410 of title 23, U.S. Code (``Alcohol-impaired driving 
     countermeasures''), and the analysis pertaining to Section 
     410 under chapter 4 of this title.
     Sec. 2003. National Driver Register
       Sec. 2003 would add several provisions to the National 
     Driver Register (NDR) statute (chapter 303 of title 49, U.S. 
     Code) to make the program more effective and efficient. The 
     National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
     manages the NDR, which was established by Congress in July 
     1960 as a central index of State reports on individuals whose 
     driving privileges have been suspended or revoked. 
     Applications for driver licenses are checked routinely by 
     States against the NDR to identify ineligible license 
     applicants, problem drivers, drivers in need of improvement, 
     and drivers under suspension or revocation.
       Subsection (a), ``Transfer of Selected National Driver 
     Register Functions to Non-Federal Management,'' amends 
     Section 30302 of title 49, U.S. Code (``National Driver 
     Register''), by adding a new subsection (e). Under subsection 
     (e), the Secretary would be authorized to decide whether to 
     enter into an agreement with an organization that represents 
     the interests of the States to manage, administer, and 
     operate the National Driver Register's (NDR) computer 
     timeshare and user assistance functions.
       NDR operations are divided into five main functions: (1) 
     data processing, accomplished by computer timeshare; (2) 
     external support services, accomplished by staff assistance 
     to NDR users; (3) development and maintenance of software for 
     data processing, accomplished by staff responsible for system 
     and applications support; (4) Federal Privacy Act 
     requirements support, accomplished by Federal staff; and (5) 
     overall management and supervision (including assistance to 
     non- State NDR users, manual preparation of needed data, 
     public information, and media relations), accomplished by 
     Federal staff. Legislation is required to permanently 
     transfer one or more of these functions, since existing 
     statutory provisions and government contracting regulations 
     do not permit one or more of these NDR functions to be 
     assigned to a designated non-Federal organization.
       If the Secretary decides to enter into an agreement with an 
     organization that represents the interests of the States to 
     manage, administer, and operate the NDR's computer timeshare 
     and user assistance functions, subsection (e) directs that: 
     (1) the Secretary ensure any management of these functions is 
     compatible with chapter 303 of title 49, U.S. Code, and the 
     regulations issued to implement that chapter; (2) any 
     transfer of these functions begin only after the Secretary 
     makes a determination that all States are participating in 
     the NDR's ``Problem Driver Pointer System,'' the system used 
     by the NDR to effect the exchange of motor vehicle driving 
     records, and that this system is functioning properly; (3) 
     the agreement to transfer these functions include a provision 
     for a transition period to allow the States time to make any 
     budgetary and legislative changes needed in order to pay fees 
     for using these functions; (4) the total of the fees charged 
     by the organization representing the interests of the States 
     in any fiscal year for the use of these functions not exceed 
     the organization's total cost for performing these functions 
     in that fiscal year; and (5) nothing in subsection (e) be 
     interpreted to diminish, limit, or in any way affect the 
     Secretary's authority to carry out chapter 303 of title 49, 
     U.S. Code. The last provision affirms the Secretary's overall 
     responsibility for the NDR (which includes Privacy Act and 
     data security requirements), regardless of any transfer of 
     these functions.
       Subsection (b), Access to Register Information, amends 
     Section 30305 (``Access to Register information'') of title 
     49, U.S. Code. Subsection (b)(1) amends Section 30305(b)(2) 
     to make two technical conforming amendments.
       Subsection (b)(2) amends Section 30305(b) to add two 
     substantive provisions. The first would eliminate a 
     deficiency in the NDR by extending participation to Federal 
     departments or agencies, like the State Department, that both 
     issue motor vehicle operator's licenses and transmit reports 
     on individuals to the NDR about whom the department or agency 
     has such licensing authority and has (1) denied a motor 
     vehicle operator's license for cause; (2) revoked, suspended 
     or canceled a motor vehicle operator's license for cause; or 
     (3) about whom the department or agency has been notified of 
     a conviction of any of the motor vehicle-related offenses or 
     comparable offenses listed in subsection 30304(a)(3). The 
     reports on these individuals transmitted by the Federal 
     department or agency must contain the identifying information 
     specified in subsection 30304(b).
       Subsection (b) also would reduce a burden on the States and 
     strengthen the NDR's efficiency by allowing Federal agencies 
     authorized to receive NDR information to make their requests 
     and receive the information directly from the NDR, instead of 
     through a State. The NDR statute currently requires 
     authorized NDR users, other than chief driver licensing 
     officials and the individuals to whom the information 
     pertains, to submit all NDR inquiries through a State.
     Sec. 2004. Authorizations of Appropriations
       Sec. 2004 contains provisions that would authorize 
     appropriations out of the Highway Account of the Highway 
     Trust Fund for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
     programs.
       Paragraph (a)(1)(A), ``Consolidated State Highway Safety 
     Programs,'' would authorize appropriations to carry out the 
     State and Community Highway Safety Program under Section 402 
     of title 23, United States Code, by the National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration, except for the Section 402 
     incentive programs under subsections (l), (m), (n), and (o), 
     of $166,700,000 for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 
     2001, and 2002, and $171,034,000 for fiscal year 2003. This 
     paragraph consolidates the previously separate NHTSA and FHWA 
     authorizations for appropriations for the Section 402 program 
     under NHTSA, continuing a  process begun by Congress in 
     fiscal year 1997 to facilitate administrative efficiencies 
     in the program.
       Paragraph (1)(B), ``Consolidated State Highway Safety 
     Programs,'' would authorize appropriations to carry out the 
     alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grant 
     provisions of subsection (l) of Section 402 of title 23, 
     United States Code, by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration, of $44,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, 
     $39,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, 
     $49,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and $50,170,000 for fiscal 
     year 2003. Amounts made available to carry out subsection (l) 
     are authorized to remain available until expended, provided 
     that, in each fiscal year the Secretary may reallocate any 
     amounts remaining available under subsection (l) to 
     subsections (m), (n), and (o) of Section 402 of title 23, 
     United States Code, as necessary to ensure, to the maximum 
     extent possible, that States may receive the maximum 
     incentive funding for which they are eligible under these 
     programs.
  Paragraph (1)(C), ``Consolidated State Highway Safety Programs,'' 
would authorize appropriations to carry out the occupant protection 
program incentive grant provisions of subsection (m) of Section 402 of 
title 23, United States Code, by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, of $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 
2000, and 2001, $22,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and $22,312,000 for 
fiscal year 2003. Amounts made available to carry out subsection (m) 
are authorized to remain available until expended, provided that, in 
each fiscal year the Secretary may reallocate any amounts remaining 
available under subsection (m) to subsections (l), (n), and (o) of 
Section 402 of title 23, United States Code, as necessary to ensure, to 
the maximum extent possible, that States may receive the maximum 
incentive funding for which they are eligible under these programs.
       Paragraph (1)(D), ``Consolidated State Highway Safety 
     Programs,'' would authorize appropriations to carry out the 
     State highway safety data improvements incentive grant 
     provisions of subsection (n) of title 23, United States Code, 
     by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, of 
     $12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 
     2001. Amounts made available to carry out subsection (n) are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.
       Paragraph (1)(E), ``Consolidated State Highway Safety 
     Programs,'' would authorize appropriations to carry out To 
     carry out the drugged driving countermeasures incentive grant 
     provisions of subsection (o) of title 23, United States Code, 
     by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
     paragraph (l) also would authorize $5,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, and $5,130,000 for 
     fiscal year 2003. Amounts made available to carry out 
     subsection (o) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended, provided that, in each fiscal year the Secretary 
     may reallocate any amounts remaining available under 
     subsection (o) to subsections (l), (m), and (n) of Section 
     402 of title 23, United States Code, as necessary to ensure, 
     to the maximum extent possible, that States may receive the 
     maximum incentive funding for which they are eligible under 
     these programs.
       Paragraph (2), ``NHTSA Operations and Research,'' would 
     authorize appropriations for the National Highway Traffic 
     Safety Administration to carry out programs and activities 
     with respect to traffic and highway safety under (A) Section 
     403 of title 23, U.S. Code (Highway Safety Research and 
     Development), (B) Chapter 301 of title 49, U.S. Code

[[Page S2464]]

     (Motor Vehicle Safety), and (C) Part C of Subtitle VI of 
     title 49, U.S. Code (Information, Standards, and 
     Requirements), of $147,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1998, 
     1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, and $151,335,000 for fiscal year 
     2003.
       The authorizations under paragraph (2) would provide the 
     necessary funds for the agency to carry out essential traffic 
     and highway safety functions. Section 403 of title 23, U.S. 
     Code, provides for highway safety research and development 
     activities, including programs to improve highway safety 
     through human factors research, evolving initiatives such as 
     intelligent transportation systems, a comprehensive 
     assessment of the agency's data needs and the data priorities 
     of the highway safety community, public information programs, 
     and university research and training. Chapter 301 of title 
     49, U.S. Code, provides for the establishment and enforcement 
     of safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle 
     equipment, together with supporting research. In keeping with 
     the Department's policy that programs with identifiable users 
     be funded as much as possible through user fees, support of 
     the motor vehicle safety program, which clearly benefits 
     highway users, is shifted to the Highway Account of the 
     Highway Trust Fund. Part C of Subtitle VI of title 49, U.S. 
     Code, provides for the establishment of low-speed collision 
     bumper standards, consumer information activities, odometer 
     regulations, automobile fuel economy standards, and motor 
     vehicle theft prevention standards. In keeping with the 
     Department's policy that programs with identifiable users be 
     funded as much as possible through user fees, support of the 
     motor vehicle information and cost savings programs, which 
     clearly benefit highway users, is shifted to the Highway 
     Trust Fund's Highway Account.
       Paragraph (3), ``National Driver Register,'' would 
     authorize appropriations for the National Highway Traffic 
     Safety Administration to carry out chapter 303 of title 49, 
     U.S. Code (National Driver Register), appropriated under 
     section 30308(a) of chapter 303, of $2,300,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, and $2,360,000 
     for fiscal year 2003. The National Driver Register (NDR) 
     provides information needed by the States to identify 
     ineligible applicants for motor vehicle driver licenses, 
     problem drivers, drivers in need of improvement, and drivers 
     under license suspension or revocation.


           TITLE III--MASS TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENTS OF 1997

     Sec. 3003. Definitions
       Section 3003 would amend section 5302, ``Definitions.''
       Section 5302(a)(1), ``capital project,'' would be amended 
     by combining from other parts of the chapter all definitions 
     covering capital programs in this provision. This 
     consolidation would make the substantive change of applying 
     the broader definition to all capital grants made under this 
     chapter. Further, by amending existing subparagraph (A), it 
     would add as an eligible cost  three new cost categories: 
     associated pre-revenue startup costs, environmental 
     mitigation, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (as 
     defined in section 6052 of the National Economic 
     Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act). The phrase 
     ``capital portions of rail trackage rights agreements'' 
     would be amended to ``payments for rail trackage rights'' 
     as a clarification. (For the Government's share of the 
     costs for the various categories of capital projects, see 
     section 3028 of this Act, ``Government's Share of 
     Costs.'')
       A new subparagraph (E) would be added to the existing 
     ``capital project'' definition, to permit preventive 
     maintenance as an eligible capital cost to ensure proper 
     preservation of the Federal capital investment. This will 
     make eligibility of preventive maintenance for capital 
     program funds the same as in the Title 23 highway program.
       New subparagraph (F) would add leasing to the definition. 
     This provision would be moved from section 5307(b)(3).
       New subparagraph (K), a combination of provisions moved 
     from sections 5309(f)(2), 5309(a)(1)(E), 5307(b)(1), would 
     make joint development costs eligible for all capital 
     programs. Transit operators would be permitted to participate 
     more fully in joint development opportunities created by mass 
     transit projects. The change would provide additional local 
     revenue sources to meet transit capital and operating needs 
     without Federal subsidy. Participation in commercial 
     development would continue to be prohibited except where a 
     fair share of the proceeds were returned for use in meeting 
     mass transit needs.
       Subparagraph (L) (moved from section 5309(a)(1)(F)) would 
     add to the definition mass transportation projects that meet 
     the special needs of the elderly and disabled individuals.
       A new subparagraph (M) regarding the development of 
     corridors to support fixed guideway systems was moved from 
     section 5309(a)(1)(G).
       A new subparagraph (N) would add to the definition, 
     vehicles and facilities, publicly or privately owned, that 
     are used to provide intercity passenger service by bus or 
     rail. This change would enhance intermodalism and facilitate 
     modal choices by local decision makers.
       A new subparagraph (O) regarding access for bicycles to 
     mass transportation facilities was moved from section 5319.
       A new subparagraph (P) would add to the definition the 
     repayment of the principal and interest of revenue bonds used 
     for capital projects. This change would increase the 
     financing options and sources of funds for recipients.
       A new subparagraph (Q) regarding crime prevention and 
     security was moved from section 5321.
       A new subparagraph (R) would allow the acquisition of non-
     fixed route paratransit transportation service to comply with 
     the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
       Subsections (a)(10) and (13) would be added to clarify that 
     both ``public transportation'' and ``transit'' mean ``mass 
     transportation.''
     Section 3004. Metropolitan Planning
       Section 3004 and section 1015 of this Act are intended to 
     make identical changes to 49 U.S.C. section 5303, 
     ``Metropolitan Planning'' and 23 U.S.C. section 134, 
     ``Metropolitan Planning,'' respectively.
       Subsection (a), ``Development Requirements,'' would be 
     amended to require that transportation plans and programs for 
     State urbanized areas be developed in a ``fair and 
     equitable'' manner. It would also require that plans and 
     programs provide for the development and integrated 
     management and operation of transportation systems and 
     facilities that will function as an intermodal transportation 
     system for the metropolitan area, the State, and the United 
     States.
       Subsections (b), ``Plan and Program Factors,'' paragraphs 
     (1) through (15) containing the existing 16 factors would be 
     deleted. New subsection (b)(1) would require that 
     Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) comply with seven 
     new goals, found in subparagraphs (A) through (G), in 
     developing plans and programs. These are: economic vitality; 
     safety and security; accessibility and mobility; environment, 
     energy conservation, and quality of life; integration and 
     connectivity; efficient management and operation; and 
     preservation of existing transportation system.
       New subsection (b)(2) would require MPOs to cooperate with 
     States and transit operators in incorporating these goals 
     into the transportation plan.
       Subsection (c), ``Designating Metropolitan Planning 
     Organizations.'' Paragraph (1)(A) would be amended to reduce 
     the threshold required for designating or redesignating an 
     MPO for an urbanized area with a population of more than 
     50,000. Representatives of local governments with 51 percent 
     of the affected population must support the designation of 
     the MPO, rather than 75 percent, as in current law. This 
     change would make it easier to redesignate an MPO and 
     recognizes the importance the MPO plays in local 
     transportation planning. Also permitted would be designation 
     under procedures established by State law.
       Under subsection (c)(2), specific reference would be made 
     to the policy board of the MPO, rather than the more general 
     reference to the MPO for the purpose of specifying MPO 
     composition.
       Subsection (c)(3) would be amended to add the MPO and the 
     Secretary of DOT as key participants, along with the chief 
     executive officer (existing law) in determining the need to 
     create multiple MPO's to serve a single metropolitan planning 
     area. It also would create balance with the lowered threshold 
     for local officials (51 percent) to request redesignation, 
     allowing the Secretary to temper local actions under 
     subsection (c)(4)(B)(i) and (c)(5).
       Subsections (c)(5) (B) and (C) would be deleted because MPO 
     redesignated would be covered in subsection (c)(3) and (4). 
     Subsection (c)(5)(A) would be redesignated subsection (c)(5).
       Subsection (d), ``Metropolitan Area Boundaries,'' would be 
     amended to freeze the connection to nonattainment boundaries 
     to those existing at the end of FY 1996 and would prevent an 
     automatic increase in the metropolitan planning area with 
     changes in nonattainment boundaries. Subsection (d) would 
     also allow the Governor and the MPO (including the central 
     city) to affirmatively increase the boundary to the 
     nonattainment limit rather than retroactively reduce it after 
     being forced to increase the boundaries. New urbanized areas 
     after FY 1996 would have their metropolitan planning 
     boundaries agreed to by the Governor and local officials and 
     particulate matter would be added as a consideration in the 
     designation of metropolitan planning area boundaries. 
     Regulations, guidance, or both will address the operational 
     issues. The practical effect will not materialize until after 
     the 2000 census.
       Subsection (e), ``Coordination.'' Paragraph (3) would be 
     amended by substituting ``coordinate'' for ``consult'' 
     between MPO's where more than one MPO has authority within an 
     existing metropolitan planning area. It would also add 
     particulate matter to non-attainment areas.
       The catchline of subsection (f) would be changed from 
     ``Developing Long-Range Plans'' to ``Development of 
     Transportation Plan'' to emphasize the transportation focus 
     rather than the time frame. In subsection (f)(1), ``long-
     range plan'' would be changed to ``transportation plan.'' 
     Subsection (f)(1)(A) would be amended so that the plan 
     identifies transportation facilities that function as a 
     ``future'' integrated transportation system rather than as 
     ``an integrated metropolitan transportation system.'' New 
     subsection (f)(1)(B) would be added to require that the 
     planning process address the same seven planning goals in 
     subsection (b) of section 5303. Subsection (f)(1)(B) would be 
     redesignated (f)(1)(C), current (f)(1)(C) would be 
     redesignated as (f)(1)(D), and current (f)(l)(D)

[[Page S2465]]

     would be deleted. Redesignated subsection (f)(1)(C)(iii) 
     would be amended to change financial techniques of value 
     capture, tolls, and congestion pricing to simply ``any 
     additional financing strategies,'' thus enhancing 
     flexibility. Redesignated subsection (f)(1)(D)(ii) would be 
     amended by deleting reference to ``vehicle'' congestion. New 
     subsection (f)(1)(D)(iii) would be added to enhance 
     transportation access for individuals without private 
     automobiles.
       Subsection (f)(2) would be amended to require MPOs, transit 
     operators, and States to cooperate in developing estimates of 
     funds that could become available to implement the plan.
       Subsection (f)(3) would be amended to require air and 
     transportation agencies to cooperate on both the State 
     Implementation Plan (SIP) development and transportation plan 
     development processes. Development of transportation plans is 
     expected to account for related investments and program 
     strategies developed through other planning activities, e.g., 
     economic development and revitalization. Such coordination 
     would ensure that transportation projects and programs would 
     consider, for example, the needs of low income communities so 
     that they would be effectively integrated with transportation 
     investments.
       Subsection (f)(4) would be amended to add freight shippers 
     to the list of stakeholders that can comment on the 
     transportation plan.
       The catchline of subsection (h) would be changed from 
     ``Balanced and Comprehensive Planning'' to ``Metropolitan 
     Planning Grants.''
     Sec. 3005. Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
       Section 3005 and section 1015 of this Act are intended to 
     make identical changes to 49 U.S.C. section 5304, 
     ``Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program'' and 23 
     U.S.C. section 134, ``Metropolitan Planning,'' respectively.
       The title of section 5304 would be changed from 
     ``Transportation Improvement Program'' to ``Metropolitan 
     Transportation Improvement Program'' to clarify the focus on 
     the metropolitan program.
       Subsection (a), ``Development and Update,'' would be 
     amended to add freight shippers to the list of stakeholders 
     that could comment on the program Transportation Improvement 
     Program (TIP) and to require the MPO, in cooperation with the 
     State and transit operators, to provide opportunities for 
     public comment on the proposed program.
       Subsection (b), ``Contents.'' Paragraph (1) would change 
     the listing of projects included in the TIP to be more 
     inclusive. Paragraph (2) would be changed to require that 
     financial plans identify ``innovative financing techniques'' 
     rather than ``innovative financing, including value capture, 
     tolls, and congestion pricing,'' to give local authorities 
     greater flexibility. Paragraph (2) would also require a 
     cooperative process for developing financial estimates on 
     which to base TIP development.
       Subsection (c), ``Project Selection'' would clarify that 
     States and recipients select projects from the TIP developed 
     by the MPO, rather than select projects to be included in the 
     TIP. The development of the TIP is the responsibility of the 
     MPO.
       Subsection (d), ``Notice and Comment,'' would require the 
     MPO, ``in cooperation with the State and transit operators,'' 
     to provide opportunity for public comment prior to approving 
     the TIP.
       Subsection (e), ``Regulatory Proceeding,'' requiring FTA to 
     adopt the FHWA environmental analysis process under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 would be 
     deleted because it has already been accomplished.
     Sec. 3006. Transportation Management Areas
       Section 3006 and section 1015 of this Act are intended to 
     make identical changes to 49 U.S.C. section 5305, 
     ``Transportation Management Areas'' and 23 U.S.C. section 
     134, ``Metropolitan Planning.''
       Section 5305 (a), ``Designation.'' Paragraph (2) would be 
     amended to delete the reference to Lake Tahoe because the 
     area has not benefited from the existing provision, which 
     allowed the area to be designated as a Transportation 
     Management Area (TMA) but did not give them MPO status and 
     eligibility for planning funds.
       Subsection (c), ``Congestion Management System,'' would be 
     amended to delete the requirement for a phase-in schedule for 
     congestion management systems because this has already been 
     accomplished.
       Subsection (d), ``Project Selection,'' would be clarified 
     to provide that States and transit operators select projects 
     from the TIP developed by the MPO, rather than select 
     projects for inclusion in the TIP. Development of the TIP is 
     the responsibility of the MPO. Paragraphs (2)(A) and (B) 
     would be deleted as extraneous.
       Subsection (e), ``Certification.'' Paragraph (1) would be 
     amended to clarify that the Secretary certifies the planning 
     process rather than the planning organization. Paragraph (2) 
     would be amended to eliminate date references that were 
     originally included to implement the new certification 
     requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-240) (ISTEA) and to 
     eliminate the mandatory penalty of 20 percent of Surface 
     Transportation Program (STP) attributable funds if an area is 
     not certified after September 30, 1996. The penalty for lack 
     of certification would no longer be limited to 20 percent of 
     STP attributable funds. It would be whatever portion of those 
     funds the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       Subsection (f), ``Additional Requirements for Certain 
     Nonattainment Areas,'' would be amended to add particulate 
     matter to ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment 
     classifications in TMAs for purpose of funding certain 
     projects.
       Subsection (g), ``Areas Not Designated Transportation 
     Management Areas.'' Paragraph (2) would be amended to 
     prohibit the Secretary from allowing abbreviated 
     transportation plans and programs for metropolitan areas in 
     nonattainment status for particulate matter in addition to 
     ozone and carbon monoxide.
       A new subsection (h), ``Transfer of Funds,'' would allow 
     the transfer of funds on the transfer of funds for highway 
     projects under FTA and for transit projects under FHWA. This 
     provision would be moved here from 23 U.S.C. section 104.
       A new subsection (i), ``Limitation on Statutory 
     Authority,'' would be added to clarify that this section does 
     not give an MPO authority to impose legal requirements on any 
     transportation provider, facility, or project that is not 
     eligible for Federal transit assistance.
       Sec. 3007. Statewide Planning
       Section 3007 would amend section 5306 by moving the entire 
     section, ``Private enterprise participation in metropolitan 
     planning and transportation improvement programs and 
     relationship to other limitations,'' to subparagraph (K) of 
     section 5323, ``General Provisions on Assistance.'' This 
     change makes room for the new section 5306, ``Statewide 
     Planning.''
       It is intended that new section 5306 parallel the current 
     requirement for ``Statewide Planning'' in title 23 (23 U.S.C. 
     section 135). This is not a substantive change because 23 
     U.S.C. section 135 already applies to grants under chapter 53 
     of title 49 by reference. The language included in chapter 53 
     of title 49 would be identical to that contained in 23 U.S.C. 
     section 135, after the following substantive changes are 
     made.
       Subsection (a) ``General Requirements.'' New subsection (a) 
     would add emphasis on operations and management to underscore 
     the need to maintain the existing transportation system and 
     to support implementation of Intelligent Transportation 
     Systems (ITS). The need for ``fair and equitable'' treatment 
     within the planning process for all areas of the State would 
     also be emphasized.
       Subsection (b), ``Scope of the Planning Process,'' would be 
     amended to include seven broad clusters of goals found in 
     paragraphs (1)(A) through (G) which would encompass the 20 
     planning factors in ISTEA. These include the broad categories 
     of the economic vitality; safety and security; accessibility 
     and mobility; environment, energy conservation, and the 
     quality of life; integration and connectivity; management and 
     operation; and preservation of the existing transportation 
     system. These are the same planning factors as in amended 
     section 5303(b).
       Paragraph (2) would require the application of goals in 
     each State to be made through cooperative arrangements 
     between the State and those involved in the statewide 
     planning process. This would be demonstrated through 
     application in transportation decision making and is meant to 
     give planning officials greater flexibility.
       New paragraph (3)(A) would incorporate existing language on 
     coordination.
       Subsection (c), ``Transportation Plan'' would include 
     reordered and clarified language from that presently in 23 
     U.S.C. section 135 concerning coordination of statewide 
     planning with metropolitan planning and the concerns of 
     Indian tribal governments. Subsection (c) would also clarify 
     that the statewide plan would cover a 20-year time frame. 
     Freight shippers would be added to the list of interested 
     parties to which the State must provide a reasonable 
     opportunity to comment on the proposed plan. Also added would 
     be new language calling for consultation between the State 
     and local elected officials outside the metropolitan planning 
     area boundaries when developing the Statewide plan for such 
     non-metropolitan areas. Development of transportation plans 
     is expected to account for related investments and program 
     strategies developed through other planning activities, e.g., 
     economic development and revitalization. Such coordination 
     would ensure that transportation projects and programs would 
     consider, for example, the needs of low income communities so 
     that they would be effectively integrated with transportation 
     investments.
       Subsection (d), ``State Transportation Improvement 
     Program,'' would reflect the focus on the statewide program. 
     Freight stakeholders would be added to the list of parties 
     that the State must provide reasonable opportunity to comment 
     on the proposed State Transportation Improvement Program 
     (STIP). Paragraph (1) would require consultation between 
     State and local transportation officials outside the 
     metropolitan area when developing the program for such 
     non-metropolitan areas. Paragraph (2) would emphasize that 
     projects included in the STIP for metropolitan areas must 
     be identical to the approved metropolitan TIP for each 
     area. Paragraph (3) would clarify that for areas under 
     50,000 in population the projects would be selected from 
     the approved STIP and the State must consult with affected 
     local officials. Paragraph (4) would direct the Secretary, 
     before approving the STIP, to find

[[Page S2466]]

     that the STIP was developed through a planning process 
     that was consistent with Federal transportation planning 
     requirements. Such approval would be required at least 
     every two years.
       Subsection (e), ``Statewide Planning Grants,'' describes 
     the formula grant program for Statewide transit planning. 
     This provision would be moved from section 5313(b).
       Subsection (f), ``Other Eligible Activities,'' would permit 
     States to use funds under this section to supplement 
     metropolitan planning grants under section 5303(h)(2)(A) and 
     grants under the Transit Cooperative Research Program under 
     section 5313(a).
       Subsection (g), ``Period of Availability,'' would make 
     funds available for 3 years after the fiscal year of 
     apportionment, after which remaining funds would be 
     reapportioned among the States.
       Subsection (h), Exclusion of Certain United States 
     Territories,'' would clarify that section 5306 would not 
     apply to the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 
     or the Virgin Islands.

                Sec. 3008. Urbanized Area Formula Grants

       Section 3008 would change the title of section 5307 from 
     ``Block grants'' to ``Urbanized area formula grants'' to 
     better reflect the contents of this section.
       Subsection (a), ``Definitions.'' Paragraph (1) would be 
     amended to delete the definition of ``associated capital 
     maintenance items'' because of the changes that would be made 
     to section 5302, ``Definitions;''; the expanded definition 
     for preventive maintenance would includes costs for 
     associated capital maintenance items, thus making this 
     definition extraneous.
       Subsection (b), ``General Authority.'' Paragraph (1) would 
     allow the following eligible grant activities: capital 
     projects, under subparagraph (A); planning, under a new 
     subparagraph (B); financing the operating costs of equipment 
     used in mass transportation in urbanized areas with a 
     population of less than 200,000, under subparagraph (C); the 
     transportation cooperative research program, under a new 
     subparagraph (D); the university transportation centers, 
     under a new subparagraph (E); training, under a new 
     subparagraph (F); research, under a new subparagraph (G); and 
     technology transfer, under a new subparagraph (H). 
     Subparagraphs (A) through (C) are in existing subsection 
     (b)(1). Subparagraph (C) would be amended to limit operating 
     assistance to only areas under 200,000; new section 
     5302(a)(1)(E) allowing preventive maintenance is intended to 
     provide areas of over 200,000 with funds to maintain their 
     assets, thus offsetting the loss of operating assistance.
       Subsection (b)(2) would be amended by adding subparagraph 
     (C), which was moved from current subsection (b)(5). This 
     subparagraph permits funds to be used for a highway project 
     only if local funds are eligible to finance either highway or 
     transit projects, i.e., are flexible.
       Subsection (b)(3) would be deleted because leasing would 
     now be eligible under the consolidated section 5302(a)(1)(F), 
     ``Definitions.''
       Subsection (b)(4) would be deleted because the new 
     definition of preventive maintenance in section 5302(a)(1)(E) 
     would include costs for associated capital maintenance items.
       Subsection (c), ``Public Participation Requirements,'' 
     would be deleted because the public participation 
     requirements are included in the planning process under 
     sections 5303 through 5306 and are not needed as a separate 
     requirement under the urbanized area formula grant program.
       Subsection (d) ``Grant Recipient Requirements'' would be 
     redesignated subsection (c). Redesignated subsection (c), 
     would eliminate the requirement for a separate program of 
     projects as a streamlining effort because one is already 
     required in the planning process. It would also require that 
     projects be selected only from those included in the STIP.
       Redesignated (c)(1)(A) through (C) regarding the 
     certification of legal, financial, technical capacity, 
     continuing control over the use of equipment and facilities, 
     and maintenance of equipment and facilities would be moved 
     from section 5307 to section 5323(i) and (j) as general 
     conditions of assistance and would now apply program wide. 
     Redesignated subsection (c)(1)(E) would be deleted and moved 
     into a consolidated section 5325 ``Contract Requirements.'' 
     Redesignated subsection (c)(1)(F) would be deleted as 
     extraneous.
       Subsection (e), ``Government's Share of Costs,'' would be 
     deleted because this requirement would be consolidated in a 
     new section 5328 and applied program-wide.
       Subsection (g), ``Undertaking Projects in Advance,'' would 
     be deleted because advance construction requirements would be 
     consolidated for program-wide application in a new section 
     5319 ``Advance Construction Authority.''
       Subsection (h), ``Streamlined Administrative Procedures,'' 
     would be deleted as extraneous.
       Subsection (j), ``Reports,'' would be deleted as not 
     necessary.
       Subsection (k), ``Submission of Certifications,'' would be 
     deleted because submissions of certifications would be moved 
     to and consolidated in section 5323(j) for program-wide 
     application as a streamlining effort.
       Subsection (n), ``Relationship to Other Laws.'' Paragraph 
     (1) would be deleted and consolidated into section 5323(i). 
     Subsection (n)(2) would be redesignated subsection (h).
     Sec. 3009. Mass Transit Account Block Grants
       Section 3009 would delete current section 5308, ``Mass 
     Transit Account Block Grants'' because this section applied 
     to a one year capital program in Fiscal Year 1981 and has 
     been executed.
     Sec. 3010. Major Capital Investments
       Section 3010 would change the title of section 5309 from 
     ``Discretionary Grants and Loans'' to ``Major Capital 
     Investments'' because the fixed guideway modernization 
     program would be merged with the urbanized area formula 
     grants program (see section 3034 of this Act) and the bus 
     discretionary program would be eliminated.
       Subsection (a), ``General Authority.'' All capital project 
     definitions contained in subparagraphs (1) (A) through (G) 
     would be moved to section 5302, ``Definitions.''
       Paragraph (2) would be amended to remove the Secretary's 
     authority to make loans. Paragraph (2) concerning the 
     Secretary's authority to apply all appropriate terms, 
     conditions, requirements, and provisions to grants under 
     section 5309 does not provide the Secretary with authority to 
     waive statutory requirements, such as the application of 
     Federal labor standards, civil rights requirements, or 
     employee protective arrangements.
       A new paragraph (3) would be added so that funds made 
     available under section 5309 may be transferred to section 
     5311 (Formula Program for Other than Urbanized Areas 
     recipient) and would be administered under the requirements 
     of section 5311.
       Subsection (b), ``Loans for Real Property Interests'' would 
     be deleted.
       Subsection (c), ``Consideration of Decreased Commuter Rail 
     Transportation'' would be deleted because this provision 
     applied to the establishment of Conrail as a private 
     corporation in 1986 and is obsolete.
       Subsection (d), ``Project as Part of Approved State Program 
     of Projects'' would be redesignated subsection (b) and 
     retitled ``Project as Part of Approved State Improvement 
     Program,'' to be consistent with changes made to redesignated 
     5307(c)(1) (existing section 5307(d)(1)). Subsections (d)(1) 
     and (2) concerning the requirements for legal, financial, and 
     technical capacity and maintenance of equipment or facilities 
     that applied to section 5309 would be moved to section 
     5323(i) and (j) and would apply program-wide.
       Subsection (e), ``Criteria for Grants and Loans for Fixed 
     Guideway Systems'' would be redesignated subsection (c) and 
     renamed ``Criteria for Grants for Fixed Guideway Systems.'' 
     Paragraph (1)(A) would be amended by deleting ``contract'' 
     and substituting ``grant agreement'' to reflect current 
     practice. Paragraphs (3)(A) and (B) would be deleted as 
     extraneous since these project approval requirements of 
     mobility improvements, environmental benefits, cost 
     effectiveness, and operating efficiencies would be covered in 
     paragraph (2)(B). Paragraph (6)(B) would be amended to 
     clarify which determinations made by the Secretary would be 
     expedited if the project was contained in a State Improvement 
     Program in a nonattainment area. Paragraph (6)(C) would be 
     amended by removing ``completely'' and substituting 
     ``substantially'' to provide greater flexibility in 
     application of this subsection to a part of a project 
     financed with flexible highway funds.
       Subsection (f) ``Required Payments and Eligible Costs of 
     Projects that Enhance Urban Economic Development or 
     Incorporate Private Investment'' would be redesignated 
     subsection (d). Paragraphs (2)(A) and (B) would be moved and 
     consolidated into the definition of eligible capital project 
     costs contained in section 5302(a)(1)(K).
       Subsection (h), ``Government's Share of Net Project Costs'' 
     would be moved and consolidated into the new section 5328 of 
     the same name.
       Subsections (i)-(k) on loan term requirements would be 
     eliminated.
       Subsection (m), ``Allocating Amounts.'' Paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) regarding allocations for FY 1993 through FY 1997 would 
     be deleted because section 5309 would now cover major capital 
     investments, rather than fixed guideway modernization and bus 
     discretionary funds. Paragraph (4) would be deleted as 
     extraneous because the amended section would no longer 
     include three different allocations. Paragraph (3) would be 
     redesignated subsection (g) and entitled ``Report to 
     Congress.''
       Subsection (n), ``Undertaking Projects in Advance,'' would 
     be deleted because advance construction authority would apply 
     program wide under section 5319.
       Subsection (o), ``Use of Deobligated Amounts,'' which 
     allowed deobligated funds to be used for any purpose under 
     this section would be deleted because the section would now 
     apply only to major capital investments.
     Sec. 3011. Formula Grants for Special Needs of Elderly 
         Individuals and individuals with Disabilities
       Section 3011 would change the title of section 5310 from 
     ``Grants and loans for special needs of elderly individuals 
     and individuals with disabilities'' to ``Formula grants for 
     special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with 
     disabilities.''
       Subsection (a), ``General Authority,'' would be amended to 
     remove loan authority. Paragraph (1) would be deleted as a 
     streamlining effort because funds to local public transit 
     operators for service for elderly and disabled persons are 
     made available through the urbanized and nonurbanized area 
     formula programs. Paragraph (2) would be redesignated 
     paragraph (1). Redesignated paragraph

[[Page S2467]]

     (1) would be amended to simplify the conditions of assistance 
     made to private nonprofit corporations and associations.
       Subsection (b), ``Apportioning and Transferring Amounts,'' 
     would be amended to remove the 90-day limitation on the 
     transfer of funds from section 5310 to either section 5311, 
     ``Formula Program for Other than Urbanized Areas'' or section 
     5307, ``Urbanized Area Formula Grants.'' This change would 
     permit such transfers at anytime during the fiscal year, 
     providing enhanced flexibility and improved program 
     management.
       Subsection (e) ``Application of section 5309.'' The 
     catchline and paragraph (1) would be deleted; thus no longer 
     requiring that a grant made under this section follow the 
     requirements of section 5309, ``Major Capital Investments.'' 
     It would require that grants be subject to requirements the 
     Secretary deems appropriate. Paragraph (2) would be 
     redesignated subsection (e) and entitled ``Grant 
     requirements.''
       Subsection (f) ``Minimum Requirements and Procedures for 
     Recipients'' would be deleted as extraneous because both the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act and the planning process 
     already provide these minimum requirements and procedures for 
     grant recipients.
       The remaining sections would be redesignated and would 
     remain unchanged.
     Sec. 3012. Formula Program for Other than Urbanized Areas
       Section 3012 would change the title of section 5311 from 
     ``Financial assistance for other than urbanized areas'' to 
     ``Formula program for other than urbanized areas'' for 
     clarification.
       Subsection (b), ``General Authority.'' Paragraph (2) would 
     be amended to provide that four percent of the rural formula 
     program funds shall be available for the Rural Transportation 
     Assistance Program (RTAP). This streamlining change moves 
     RTAP from the Transit Planning and Research Program to the 
     formula program for other than urbanized areas.
       Subsection (c) ``Apportioning Amounts'' would be amended to 
     remove the extraneous apportionment calculation based on 
     nonexistent Census estimates of nonurbanized population. The 
     number of years for obligation after the fiscal year in which 
     the amount is apportioned would be increased from two, to 
     three, to conform the nonurbanized area program with the 
     urbanized formula program under section 5307.
       Subsection (e), ``Use for Administration and Technical 
     Assistance.'' Paragraph (1) would be amended to broaden the 
     availability and use of funds by allowing States to use the 
     rural formula funds now available to them for program 
     administration to be used, as well, to support the Transit 
     Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) and for training.
       The catchline of subsection (f) would be changed from 
     ``Intercity Bus Transportation'' to ``Intercity Bus or Rail 
     Transportation'' to reflect the inclusion of rail as an 
     eligible activity. The first sentence of paragraph (1) would 
     be deleted to drop the requirement for intercity bus set-
     asides; the remaining phrase of paragraph (1) would be 
     redesignated subsection (f). Subparagraph (A) would be 
     redesignated paragraph (1). Planning and marketing expenses 
     for intercity buses would still be eligible, and would be 
     expanded to include intercity rail.
       Paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) would be deleted as extraneous 
     because intercity bus shelters and joint use stops and depots 
     would be generally eligible under this section. Paragraph 
     (1)(D) would expand operating grants to include either bus or 
     rail and would be redesignated as paragraph (2). Paragraph 
     (1)(E) would be amended so that rural connections between 
     small mass transportation operators and intercity bus would 
     now include connections to rail or air carriers to enhance 
     intermodalism in nonurbanized areas and would be redesignated 
     as paragraph (3).
       Subsection (f)(2) would be deleted because there would no 
     longer be a requirement for a specific amount to be spent on 
     intercity bus projects. The deletion of the requirement for a 
     specific set-aside for intercity bus services obviates the 
     need for a certification from the State that intercity bus 
     needs are met before the funds could be used for other 
     eligible purposes.
       Subsection (g), ``Government's Share of Costs,'' would be 
     moved to and consolidated into section 5328. Subsections (h) 
     and (i) would be redesignated as subsections (g) and (h), 
     respectively.
       A new subsection (i), ``Apportioning and Transferring 
     Amounts'' would be added to allow the transfer of funds from 
     section 5311 to section 5310 for use in the elderly and 
     disabled programs. This provision would be moved from 
     existing section 5336(g).
     Sec. 3013. National Research Programs
       Section 5312 would be renamed the ``National Research 
     Programs'' which would be moved from section 5314. Section 
     5312 on ``Research, Development, Demonstration, and Training 
     Projects'' would be moved to section 5314.
       Subsection (a), ``Program.'' Paragraph (1) would provide 
     that funds made available to this section can be used for the 
     Transit Cooperative Research Program under section 5313; for 
     research, development, demonstration, and training projects 
     under section 5314; for the national transit institute under 
     section 5315; for bus testing under section 5318; and for the 
     human resource program under section 5322. Paragraph (2) sets 
     aside a minimum of $2 million to help transportation 
     providers comply with the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) 
     and would be moved without change from section 5314, 
     ``National Planning and Research Program.''
       The only substantive change to section 5312 would be the 
     deletion of subsection (a)(4)(B) regarding the establishment 
     of an Industry Technical Panel. This provision is extraneous 
     because several other avenues exist to acquire advice from 
     the transit industry.
       Subsection (b), ``Government's Share,'' provides that the 
     Secretary establish the government's share consistent with 
     the benefit provided.
     Sec. 3014. Transit Cooperative Research Programs
       Section 3014 would amend section 5313 by changing the title 
     from ``State Planning and Research Programs'' to ``Transit 
     Cooperative Research Program''.
       Subsection (a), ``Cooperative Research Program'' would be 
     amended to include the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 
     as a member of the governing board of the program.
       Subsection (b), ``State Planning and Research,'' would be 
     deleted because the State planning requirements would be 
     consolidated under section 5306, ``Statewide Planning.'' 
     Because the funds would no longer be divided and allocated 
     directly, the fifty percent limit of section 5312, National 
     Planning and Research Programs, would be deleted.
       Subsection (c), ``Government's Share,'' would be deleted 
     and would be moved to section 5306 ``Statewide Planning.''
     Sec. 3015. Research, Development, Demonstration, and Training 
         Projects
       The language of section 5314 would be replaced by and moved 
     to section 5312. Section 5314 would be renamed ``Research, 
     development, demonstration, and training projects.''
       Subsection (a), ``Research, Development, Demonstration, and 
     Technical Assistance Projects.'' In paragraph (1), eligible 
     projects would be expanded to include those that improve 
     service, enhance safety or security, increase capacity, 
     reduce costs of services, equipment, or infrastructure, 
     improve intermodal connections, reduce the need for 
     transportation, overcome institutional barriers, disseminate 
     technical information, promote applications of innovative 
     technology, or advance the knowledge of mass transportation.
       A new subsection (d), ``Joint Partnership Program for 
     Deployment of Innovation,'' would be added governing a joint 
     partnership program for transit innovation deployment. Under 
     paragraph (1), consortia would consist of public or private 
     organizations which provide mass transportation service to 
     the public, and businesses offering goods or services to mass 
     transportation providers. It may also include public or 
     private research organizations or state or local governmental 
     authorities. The program would, under paragraph (2), permit 
     entering into cooperative agreements, grants, contracts, or 
     other agreements with consortiums to promote the deployment 
     of innovation in mass transportation technology, services, 
     management, or operational practices. In paragraph (3), the 
     government's share of the cost would be limited to a maximum 
     of 50 percent of the net project cost. Paragraph (4) gives 
     the Secretary the authority to establish the solicitation and 
     award process. Paragraph (5) states that net revenues would 
     be credited to the future joint partnerships under this 
     subsection.
       Subsection (e), ``International Mass Transportation 
     Program,'' authorizes an international mass transportation 
     program whereby the Secretary may develop and disseminate 
     information on international transportation marketing 
     opportunities to domestic operators; cooperate with foreign 
     public sector entities on research; advocate U.S. mass 
     transportation products and services in international 
     markets; participate in seminars to inform international 
     markets of the technical quality of mass transportation 
     products and services; and offer FTA technical services to 
     foreign public authorities on a cost reimbursement basis. The 
     Secretary would be authorized to cooperate with Federal 
     agencies, State and local agencies, public and private 
     nonprofit institutions, government laboratories, foreign 
     governments, or any organization deemed appropriate to carry 
     out this section. A special account would be established for 
     funds from any cooperating organization or person to pay for 
     promotional materials, travel, reception, and representation 
     expenses.
     Sec. 3016. National Transit Institute
       Section 3016 would amend section 5315 by changing the title 
     from ``National Mass Transportation Institute'' to the 
     ``National Transit Institute'' to reflect current practice. 
     It would also change the subsection (a), ``Establishment and 
     Duties,'' list of courses to include architectural design in 
     paragraph (5), construction management, insurance, and risk 
     management in paragraph (11), and innovative finance in a new 
     paragraph (15). Paragraph (7) would be amended to clarify 
     that turnkey approaches ``deliver'' mass transportation 
     system rather than ``carryout.''
     Sec. 3017. University Research Institutes
       Section 5316 would be repealed. The program would be 
     combined with the Transportation Centers program, section 
     5317, into an Intermodal Transportation Centers program 
     administered by the Research and Special Programs 
     Administration in a new chapter 52 of title 49.

[[Page S2468]]

     Sec. 3018. Transportation Centers
       Section 3018 would repeal section 5317. This program would 
     be combined with the University Research Institutes, section 
     5316, program into an Intermodal Transportation Centers 
     program administered by the Research and Special Programs 
     Administration in a new chapter 52 of title 49.
     Sec. 3019. Bus Testing Facility
       Section 3019 would amend section 5318 (b), ``Operation and 
     Maintenance,'' and (d), ``Availability of Amounts to Pay for 
     Testing,'' to permit, in addition to a contract, the use of a 
     grant or cooperative agreement to operate and maintain the 
     bus testing facility. This would enhance flexibility in 
     choosing and managing facility operators by FTA. Other mass 
     transportation vehicles such as paratransit vans would be 
     permitted to be tested at the facility in subsection (a), 
     ``Establishment.''
     Sec. 3020. Advance Construction Authority
       Section 3020 would delete section 5319, ``Bicycle 
     Facilities'' in its entirety. Eligibility for bicycle 
     facilities would be moved to, ``Definitions,'' section 
     5302(a)(1)(O), and its special 90 percent matching share 
     would be moved to section 5328, ``Government's Share of 
     Costs.'' A new section 5319, ``Advance Construction 
     Authority,'' consolidating the advance construction authority 
     in sections 5307(g) and 5309(n) would be substituted in its 
     place. The requirements of advance construction authority 
     would remain unchanged from their previous application to 
     sections 5307 and 5309, and would be expanded to apply to 
     section 5311.
       The new section incorporates the requirement that the 
     interest eligible for reimbursement be based on the most 
     favorable interest terms available, as is now included in 
     section 5309(n), rather than the inflation-based approach 
     under section 5307(g), which proved to be unworkable in 
     practice. Preaward authorization to incur project costs would 
     be allowed. This would permit commencement of work at the 
     time funds are apportioned, rather than after grant award. 
     This change would incorporate in law a current practice.
     Sec. 3021. Suspended Light Rail System Technology Pilot 
         Project
       Section 3021 would delete section 5320, ``Suspended Light 
     Rail System Technology Pilot Project,'' in its entirety. This 
     section is unnecessary because the project is already 
     eligible under section 5312, ``National Planning and Research 
     Programs.'' A new 5320, ``Access to Jobs and Training'' would 
     be added.
       Under subsection (a), ``General Authority,'' the Secretary 
     would make grants to assist States, local governments, and 
     private non-profit organizations to transport economically 
     disadvantaged persons to jobs and employment-related 
     activities.
       Under subsection (b), ``Grant Criteria,'' the Secretary 
     would make discretionary grants to recipients based on 
     statutory criteria including severity of the welfare 
     transportation problem, existence of or willingness to create 
     a mechanism to coordinate transportation and human resource 
     services planning, the applicant's qualifications and 
     performance under other welfare reform activities, the extent 
     to which a partnership with human resource agencies exists, 
     and the applicant's application. The application would be 
     required to address the access to work transportation needs 
     and possible new service strategies, the coordinating of 
     existing service providers and possible new service 
     strategies, the promotion of employer-provided transportation 
     services, and long-term financing strategies to support the 
     program.
       Under subsection (c), ``Eligible Projects,'' eligible grant 
     activities would include integrating transportation and 
     welfare planning, coordinating transit providers with human 
     resource service providers, operating and capital costs of 
     service start-up, promoting employer-provided transportation, 
     developing financing strategies, and related administrative 
     expenses.
       Under subsection (d), ``Technical Assistance,'' the 
     Secretary may make grants, cooperative agreements, or 
     contracts for technical assistance and the evaluation of 
     projects funded under this section.
       Under subsection (e), ``Government's Share of Costs,'' the 
     DOT share of costs would be 50 percent of the net cost and 
     the remainder will be cash from sources other than revenues 
     from providing transit service. Subsection (e) would allow a 
     recipient to use other Federal human services funds to fund 
     the non-governmental share. This subsection would not apply 
     to the grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts for the 
     provision of technical assistance; thus they could be funded 
     completely by the Government.
       Under subsection (f), ``Planning Requirements,'' grants 
     would be required to be included in Metropolitan and 
     Statewide plans and Transportation Improvement Programs.
       Under subsection (g), ``Grant Requirements,'' grants would 
     be subject to terms and conditions as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       Under subsection (h), ``Availability of Amounts,'' funds 
     are available for three years after the fiscal year they are 
     made available.
     Sec. 3022. Crime Prevention and Security
       Section 3022 would amend section 5321, ``Crime Prevention 
     and Security,'' by moving its provisions to section 
     5302(a)(l)(Q), ``Definitions,'' thereby making crime 
     prevention and security eligible as a capital project.
     Sec. 3023. General Provisions on Assistance
       Section 3023 would amend section 5323, ``General Provisions 
     on Assistance.''
       Subsection (a), ``Interests in Property.'' Paragraph (1)(A) 
     would be amended to clarify that a project must be contained 
     in a TIP rather than in a program of projects before a 
     recipient can acquire property with FTA funds.
       Paragraph (1)(D) would be amended to clarify that an 
     employee protective arrangement certification under section 
     5333(b) applies only to projects under sections 5307 (except 
     planning), 5309, 5311, 5313 (for operational activities 
     only), redesignated 5314, and 5320 (except planning) and not 
     to all projects in the transit program.
       Subsection (b), would be amended to change the catchline 
     from ``Notice and public hearing'' to ``Social, economic, and 
     environmental interests'' to clarify the nature and purpose 
     of the environmental public hearing. Paragraph (2), which 
     describes how the notice of hearing must be published, would 
     be removed due to its unnecessary prescriptive requirements. 
     New paragraphs (2)(A) and (B) would be added here to reflect 
     only those environmental requirements that are unique to FTA, 
     by moving them from section 5324(b); National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) 
     provides the overall environmental review requirements.
       Subsection (d) would be renamed from ``Buying and Operating 
     Buses'' to ``Charter Bus Limitation'' to more accurately 
     reflect the meaning of the subsection. It would now only 
     apply to sections 5307, 5309, and 5311. The reference to 
     existing section 5308, which would be repealed, would be 
     deleted.
       Subsection (e) ``Bus Passenger Seat Specifications" would 
     be deleted. This ``housekeeping'' effort removes 
     unnecessarily prescriptive requirements and recognizes the 
     fact that specifications were never issued by the Secretary.
       Subsection (i), ``Government's Share of Costs for Certain 
     Projects'' would be deleted and moved to section 5328 where 
     these requirements would be consolidated.
       Subsection (j), ``Buy America,'' would be redesignated 
     subsection (h). Paragraph (7) would be deleted as extraneous 
     since the ``foreign entity purchases'' report to Congress has 
     been submitted.
       Subsection (k) ``Application of Section 135 of Title 23,'' 
     would be deleted and moved to section 5303 where planning 
     requirements would be consolidated.
       A new subsection (i), ``Submission of Certification'' moved 
     from section 5307(k), would be added to provide for a single 
     certification for all programs under this chapter.
       A new subsection (j), ``Legal Financial, and Technical 
     Capacity,'' would be added which would consolidate all 
     requirements for legal, financial, and technical capacity for 
     all programs under this chapter.
       A new subsection (k), ``Private Enterprise Participation'' 
     would be moved here from section 5606(a).
       Subsection (l), ``Preaward and Postdelivery Review of 
     Rolling Stock Purchase'' would be deleted because this 
     requirement is costly and unnecessary.
     Sec. 3024. Acquisition of Real Property Owned By The 
         Government
       Section 3024 would delete as extraneous section 5324, 
     ``Limitations on discretionary and special needs grants and 
     loans,'' in its entirety. Subsection (a), ``Relocation 
     Program Requirements,'' are contained in the Surface 
     Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance of 1987 and 
     would be redundant if retained. The environmental 
     requirements contained in subsection (b), ``Economic, Social, 
     and Environmental Interests,'' are now included in NEPA with 
     the exception of the unique environmental requirements that 
     apply to FTA, which would be placed in section 5323(b), 
     ``General Provisions on Assistance.'' Subsection (c), 
     ``Prohibitions Against Regulating Operations and Charges,'' 
     would be moved to section 5334, ``Administrative,'' and would 
     now apply program wide, rather than only to section 5309 
     recipients.
       A new section 5324 would be named ``Acquisition of Real 
     Property Owned by the Government.'' This new section would 
     make surplus real property owned by the Government available 
     for a transit purpose or as a source of materials for the 
     construction and maintenance of a transit facility adjacent 
     to Government land. This section is patterned on 23 USC 
     section 317.
     Sec. 3025. Contract Requirements
       Section 3025 would amend section 5325, ``Contract 
     Requirements.''
       Subsection (b), ``Acquiring Rolling Stock,'' would be moved 
     to section 5326, ``Special Procurements.'' New subsection 
     (b), ``Competitive Negotiation,'' would authorize the use of 
     a competitive negotiation procurement process when the sealed 
     bid procurement process is not suitable. Subsection (c), 
     ``Procuring Associated Capital Maintenance Items,'' would be 
     deleted because they would now be included as preventive 
     maintenance in section 5302(a)(l)(E), ``Definitions.''
       Subsection (d), ``Architectural, Engineering, and Design 
     Contracts,'' would be moved to new subsection (b)(2).
     Sec. 3026. Special Procurements
       Section 3026 would amend section 5326, ``Special 
     Procurements.''
       Subsection (a), ``Turnkey System Projects,'' would be 
     amended to expand the

[[Page S2469]]

     definition of turnkey system projects to include an operable 
     segment of a transportation system and to expand from seller 
     operation to seller financing, designing, building, and 
     system operation, or any combination thereof. It would allow 
     the contractor to acquire, rather than construct, a mass 
     transportation system or segment. Paragraph (2) would require 
     a turnkey solicitation to be based on a two-phased 
     competitive procurement process where participation of small 
     and medium sized businesses would be encouraged in joint 
     ventures with large firms. Paragraph (3) would be deleted 
     because it is completed.
       Subsection (c), ``Efficient Procurement'' would be amended 
     to remove references to dates and guidance requirements and 
     moved to subsection (e). New subsection (c), ``Acquiring 
     Rolling Stock'' would be moved here from section 5325(b) as a 
     ``housekeeping'' effort.
       Subsection (d), ``Procuring Spare Parts'' would be amended 
     to permit a recipient to purchase spare parts directly from 
     the original manufacturer or supplier without prior FTA 
     approval if the manufacturer is the only source for the item 
     and the price reflects market conditions.
     Sec. 3027. Oversight
       Section 3027 would change the name of section 5327 from 
     ``Project Management Oversight'' to ``Oversight'' to reflect 
     the expansion of this section to include other oversight such 
     as financial oversight.
       Subsection (c), ``Limitations on Use of Available 
     Amounts,'' would be amended to increase the percentage 
     takedown from .5 percent to .75 percent of section 5307. A 
     takedown would no longer be taken from section 5311. Taken 
     together, these changes would result in an increase in the 
     total funds available for oversight activities and focus the 
     source of funds to the programs with the most need for 
     oversight. Paragraph (2) would be amended to permit funds 
     under this section to be used to provide technical assistance 
     to correct deficiencies identified by compliance reviews and 
     audits. This change would facilitate implementation of needed 
     changes to recipient procedures and practices.
     Sec. 3028. Government Share of Costs
       Section 3028 would delete section 5328, ``Project review,'' 
     in its entirety. This section required specific timelines and 
     milestones for the various stages of fixed guideway projects.
       Compliance with the section's requirements was problematic; 
     projects proceed at a pace determined primarily by local 
     actions, not by those of the FTA. Also, commitments have 
     already been made to the projects contained in subsection (c) 
     which would therefore no longer be needed.
       This section would be renamed ``Government share of costs'' 
     and would contain a consolidation of most of the government's 
     share of costs requirements in this single section. 
     Subsection (a), ``Capital Projects,'' would establish the 
     Government's share of the costs for all capital projects 
     funded under chapter 53 of title 49. The Governments' share 
     for most capital projects would remain at 80 percent. 
     Paragraphs (1) (A) and (B) contain special Government share 
     ratios for certain kinds of projects.
       Under paragraph (1)(A), the Government's share of a bicycle 
     facility, as defined in section 5302(a)(1)(O), would remain 
     90 percent of the cost of the project.
       Under paragraph (1)(B), the Government's share of the costs 
     for a capital project that involves acquiring vehicle-related 
     equipment required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), would remain at 90 percent of the net 
     project cost of the equipment that is attributable to 
     complying with those Acts. The Secretary of Transportation, 
     through practicable administrative procedures, would still be 
     able determine the costs attributable to that equipment .
       Under subsection (b), ``Operating Expenses,'' the 
     government's share of operating costs may not exceed 50 
     percent and would be limited to projects under sections 
     5302(a)(1)(R), 5307, or 5311. In section 3008 of this Act, 
     operating assistance would be limited to only those areas 
     under 200,000 in population.
     Sec. 3029. Investigation of Safety Hazards
       Section 3029 would amend section 5329, ``Investigation of 
     Safety Hazards,'' by deleting the extraneous subsection (b), 
     ``Report.'' This report to Congress on safety has been 
     submitted.
     Sec. 3030. Nondiscrimination
       Section 3030 would amend section 5332, 
     ``Nondiscrimination.''
       Subsection (b), ``Prohibitions,'' would be amended by 
     adding disability to the list of nondiscrimination factors, 
     and to replace ``creed'' with ``religion'', that now includes 
     race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age. This 
     addition makes this section consistent with the requirements 
     of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
     Sec. 3031. Labor Standards
       Section 3031 would amend section 5333, ``Labor Standards.''
       Subsection (b), ``Employee Protective Arrangements,'' would 
     be amended to conform it to current practice and to apply it 
     to the section 5320 ``Access to Jobs and Training'' (except 
     planning). Section 5333(b) would apply to sections 5307 
     (except planning), 5309, 5311, 5313 (operational activities 
     only), redesignated 5314, and 5320 (except planning). It 
     removes its incorrect application to bus testing, 
     administrative requirements, oversight, rail modernization 
     formula, and the authorization section caused by 
     codification.
     Sec. 3032. Administrative

       Section 3032 would amend section 5334, ``Administrative.''
       Subsection (a), ``General Authority.'' Paragraph (10) would 
     be amended to permit FTA to charge fees to cover the costs of 
     training or conferences that promote mass transportation. 
     This change would increase FTA's flexibility in offering 
     courses, help defray the costs of such courses, and provide 
     additional revenues to expand course offerings.
       A new paragraph (11) would be added that would clarify 
     FTA's participation with cooperating foreign countries on 
     various activities, such as research and technology. This 
     wording would be consistent with Federal highway law.
       Subsection (g), ``Transfer of Assets No Longer Needed,'' 
     would be simplified to allow assets that are acquired by FTA 
     assistance and that are no longer needed for public 
     transportation purposes may be sold or transferred under 
     conditions determined by the Secretary. This change removes 
     unnecessary regulatory burdens, enhances flexibility in 
     making decisions regarding asset disposition, and facilitates 
     the undertaking of joint development projects.
       Subsection (i), ``Authority of Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development,'' would be deleted as a ``housekeeping'' 
     change; it references pre-1967 authority of the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development (HUD) over the Federal transit 
     assistance program.
Subsection (j), ``Relationship to Other Laws,'' would be redesignated 
    subsection (i).
       New subsection (j), ``Prohibitions Against Regulating 
     Operations and Charges,'' which prohibits FTA from regulating 
     transit operations and charges would be moved here from 
     section 5324 (c) and would remain unchanged, except that it 
     would now apply to all programs, rather than to only section 
     5309. This would incorporate in law a current practice.
       New Subsection (k), ``Test and Evaluation,'' would be added 
     to allow the waiver of all requirements except for labor 
     certification and environmental review under NEPA for grants 
     to test or develop any material, invention, patented article, 
     or process. This authority would be similar to that contained 
     in Federal highway law.
     Sec. 3033. Reports and Audits
       Section 3033 amends section 5335, ``Reports and Audits.''
       Subsection (a) would be amended to change the catchline 
     from ``Reporting system and uniform system of accounts and 
     records'' to ``National transit database'' to more accurately 
     reflect the contents of this subsection.
       Subsection (a)(2) would be redesignated subsection (b) and 
     entitled ``Inclusion of Grant Recipients in Database.''
       Subsection (b), ``Quarterly Reports,'' would be deleted, 
     removing the requirement for quarterly reports to Congress on 
     State obligations and grants executed. This information is 
     readily available elsewhere through normal distribution so 
     that a Congressional report is extraneous and not cost 
     effective.
       Subsection (c), ``Biennial Needs Report,'' would also be 
     deleted, removing the requirement for a biennial needs report 
     to be submitted by the Comptroller General. The General 
     Accounting Office (GAO) concurs that this report is redundant 
     because a comparable report to Congress is required by 49 
     U.S.C section 308.
       Subsection (d), ``Biennial Transferability Report'' would 
     also be deleted. The GAO agrees that this report is not 
     needed, since the information on the amount of mass 
     transportation money transferred for non-mass transportation 
     purposes is readily available elsewhere.
     Sec. 3034. Apportionment of Appropriations for Formula Grants
       Section 3034 would amend section 5336 by changing the name 
     from ``Apportionment of Appropriations for Block Grants'' to 
     ``Apportionment of Appropriations for Formula Grants'' to 
     more accurately reflect the purpose of this section.
       Subsection (a), ``Access to Jobs and Training,'' would 
     provide $100 million annually until 2003 for the ``Access to 
     Jobs and Training Program'' under section 5320.
       Subsection (b), ``Allocation For Urbanized Area, Other Than 
     Urbanized Area, Special Needs of Elderly Individuals and 
     Individuals With Disabilities Formula Programs,'' would 
     provide for distribution of funds among the formula programs 
     as follows: 94.5 percent of the funds for ``Urbanized Area 
     Formula Grants'' (section 5307); 1.75 percent of the funds 
     for ``Formula Grants for Special Needs of Elderly Individuals 
     and Individuals with Disabilities'' (section 5310); and 3.75 
     percent of the funds for the ``Formula Program for Other than 
     Urbanized Areas'' (section 5311). In the urbanized area 
     formula grants program, the changes to this section would 
     merge the formula fixed guideway program into the program 
     without change in the formula. The amount apportioned by the 
     current fixed guideway formula would be equal to the amount 
     available for major capital investments. The remainder would 
     be apportioned by the current urbanized area formula.
       Subsection (c), ``Fixed Guideway Tier,'' would provide 
     funds to the fixed guideway systems listed in existing 
     section 5337.
       Subsection (d), ``Operating Assistance,'' would be 
     redesignated subsection (f) and

[[Page S2470]]

     would provide that urbanized areas under 200,000 in 
     population could use their entire apportionment for operating 
     assistance, eliminating the former statutory cap (areas over 
     200,000 would not be able to use funds for operating 
     assistance).
       Subsections (e) through (i) would be redesignated (g) 
     through (k), respectively. Redesignated subsection (i), 
     ``Transfers of Apportionments'' would be amended to permit 
     transfers of apportionments from the urbanized area formula 
     program to either the ``Formula Grants for Special Needs of 
     Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities 
     program'' (section 5310) or the ``Formula Program for Other 
     than Urbanized Areas'' (section 5311).
       Former subsection (j), ``Application of Other Sections,'' 
     would be deleted as extraneous. Application of other sections 
     is not relevant since this section covers only urbanized area 
     formula grants (section 5307).
       Former subsection (k), ``Certain Urbanized Areas 
     Grandfathered,'' would be deleted. Grandfathering urbanized 
     areas designated under the 1980 census and not designated 
     under the 1990 census for FY 1993 is obsolete.
     Sec. 3035. Apportionment of Appropriations for Fixed Guideway 
         Modernization
       Section 3035 would delete section 5337 in its entirety 
     because the current formula would be merged into section 
     5336(c).
     Sec. 3036. Authorizations
       Section 3036 would amend and completely rewrite section 
     5338 by providing new authorization levels for fiscal years 
     1998 to 2003.
       Formula programs under subsection (a) would be funded from 
     the Mass Transit Account for ``Urbanized Area Formula 
     Grants'' (section 5307) (including Access to Jobs and 
     Training (section 5320)), ``Formula Grants for Special Needs 
     of Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities'' 
     (section 5310), and ``Formula Program for Other than 
     Urbanized Areas'' (section 5311) at $3,970.5 million for 
     fiscal years 1998-2002 and $4,077,704,000 for fiscal year 
     2003. No General Funds would be provided.
       Under subsection (b), ``Major Capital Investments,'' the 
     following levels would be authorized:
       FY 1998--$800 million.
       FY 1999--$950 million.
       FY 2000-2002--$1,000 million per year for each fiscal year.
       FY 2003--$1,026 million.
       Subsection (c), ``Metropolitan Planning,'' would authorize 
     appropriations of not more than $39.5 million per year for FY 
     1998-2002 and $40.527 million for FY 2003 for metropolitan 
     planning grants under sections 5303-5305.
       Subsection (d), ``Statewide Planning,'' would authorize 
     appropriations of not more than $8.25 million per year for FY 
     1998-2002 and $8.465 million for FY 2003 for statewide 
     planning grants under section 5306.
       Subsection (e), ``National Transit Research,'' would 
     authorize appropriations of not more than $38.050 million in 
     FY 1998-2002 and $39,039,000 for FY 2003 for national transit 
     research under section 5312 (including the Transit 
     Cooperative Research Program, the National Transit Institute, 
     and the Bus Testing Facility).
       Subsection (f), ``University Transportation Centers,'' 
     would authorize not more than $6 million for FY 1998-2002 and 
     $6.156 million for FY 2003 for the University Transportation 
     Centers under chapter 52 of title 49.
       Subsection (g), ``Administrative Expenses,'' would 
     authorize appropriations of such sums as necessary for 
     administrative expenses.
       Subsection (h), ``Grants as Contractual Obligations,'' 
     would provide that grants under subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 5338 constitute contract authority.
       Subsection (i), ``Availability,'' would provide that funds 
     made available under subsections (a) through (f) of section 
     5338 are available until expended.
       Subsection (j), ``Transfer of Prior Year Funds Remaining 
     Available,'' would provide a ``housekeeping'' change by 
     allowing the transfer of any appropriated funds to the most 
     recent appropriations heading for the same purpose; these 
     funds would be administered in accordance with the provisions 
     of the heading into which they were transferred. This will 
     allow for the elimination of the need to account for expired 
     programs separately.
       Sec. 3037. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
       Section 3037 would amend the National Capital 
     Transportation Act of 1969 to change the source of funding 
     for the final two years. Section 17(c) would be amended to 
     repeal the authorization for general fund appropriations for 
     fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and would reduce the total amount 
     authorized to be appropriated by $250,000,000. In its place, 
     a new subsection (d) would be added authorizing a like amount 
     to be appropriated from the Mass Transit Account, 
     $200,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 and $50,300,000 in fiscal 
     year 1999.


                     TITLE IV--MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

       Sec. 4001. State Grants and Other Commercial Motor Vehicle 
     Programs
       Subsection (a) amends 49 U.S.C. 31101 by adding a new 
     subsection (a) to provide a detailed description of the 
     objectives of subchapter I, State Grants. This new subsection 
     (a) emphasizes that the grants authorized under section 31102 
     are to be used by the Secretary, States, and other political 
     jurisdictions working in partnership to improve commercial 
     motor vehicle and driver safety. This new subsection (a) also 
     provides some detail on the new performance-based approach 
     grant recipients are to take by explaining that the funds 
     authorized by this section are to be used to establish 
     program baselines and benchmarks to evaluate overall motor 
     carrier safety program effectiveness. The new subsection 
     31101 (a) further clarifies the performance-based grant 
     concept by describing some of the other activities eligible 
     for funding under this section and the safety goals these 
     activities will provide the means to achieve.
       Paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) and (c)(9) amend 49 U.S.C. 31102 
     to authorize the Secretary to encourage State implementation 
     of performance-based activities to improve motor carrier 
     safety. Section 31102 had already authorized grants to 
     support State enforcement of Federal regulations, standards, 
     and orders and compatible State regulations, standards, and 
     orders. As a result of this amendment, section 31102 
     authorizes grants to fund traditional Motor Carrier Safety 
     Assistance Program (MCSAP) activities, including uniform 
     roadside driver and vehicle safety inspections, traffic 
     enforcement, compliance reviews, safety data collection, and 
     also new performance-based activities and analyses to 
     identify Statewide safety problems, establish benchmarks, 
     implement activities to address unique problems, and measure 
     program effectiveness. States are still required to submit a 
     State Motor Carrier Safety Plan to qualify for the MCSAP 
     grants and the performance-based incentives. It is envisioned 
     that all States will implement performance-based activities 
     by the end of fiscal year 2003.
       Subsection (c) amends section 31102 by adding references to 
     hazardous materials transportation safety to perpetuate the 
     long-standing policy that motor vehicle safety encompasses 
     hazardous materials transportation safety as well.
       Subsection (d) amends various provisions in section 
     31102(b), 49 U.S.C., which describe required components of 
     the plan each State must develop and submit to the Secretary 
     in order to qualify for funding under section 49 U.S.C. 
     31102.
       Paragraph (d)(1) amends 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(1)(J) to clarify 
     that the activities referred to in that subparagraph are 
     those activities described in paragraph (1) of subsection (c) 
     of section 31102, 49 U.S.C. This amendment thus explains that 
     a State plan must ensure that State ``enforcement of 
     commercial motor vehicle size and weight limitations at 
     locations other than fixed weight facilities, at specific 
     locations such as steep grades or mountainous terrains where 
     the weight of a commercial motor vehicle can significantly 
     affect the safe operation of the vehicle, or at ports where 
     intermodal shipping containers enter and leave the United 
     States'' (49 U.S.C. 31102(c)(1)) will not diminish the 
     effectiveness of the State commercial motor vehicle safety 
     programs funded through subsection (a) of 49 U.S.C. 31102.
       Paragraph (d)(2) revises 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(1)(K) to 
     provide States with more flexibility in establishing 
     consistent and effective sanctions for violations of 
     commercial motor vehicle safety regulations. The maximum fine 
     schedule published by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 
     is too prescriptive. As a result of this change, States will 
     no longer be limited in their ability to use a range of fines 
     to ensure compliance and address their unique safety 
     problems.
       Paragraph (d)(3) revises 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(1)(L) to expand 
     the preexisting requirement that each State coordinate the 
     development and implementation of its Motor Carrier Safety 
     Plan with the development and implementation of its Section 
     402 highway safety plan. This revision directs the States to 
     also coordinate their Motor Carrier Safety Plans with 
     other agencies responsible for highway safety in the State 
     including FHWA and NHTSA highway grant recipients. This 
     change also requires the State to provide for coordination 
     of data collection and information systems with these 
     other agencies.
       Paragraph (d)(4) revises 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(1)(M) to 
     require that State plans ensure that all jurisdictions 
     receiving funding participate in SAFETYNET, not just the 48 
     contiguous States. This revision also deletes the January 1, 
     1994, deadline for meeting this requirement.
       Paragraph (d)(5) strikes 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(1)(N), and 
     thereby deletes the requirement that a State's plan emphasize 
     and improve enforcement of traffic safety laws regarding 
     commercial vehicle safety. This requirement is being removed 
     because it is overly prescriptive and unnecessary; if a 
     State's unique problems can best be addressed by other 
     actions, such as public education, this requirement would 
     cause the State to spend grant receipts on activities not 
     best designed to solve that State's problems.
       Paragraph (d)(6) revises 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(1)(O) to remove 
     the requirement that a State plan promote enforcement of 
     requirements related to the licensing of commercial motor 
     vehicle (CMV) drivers and the requirement that a State plan 
     promote enforcement of hazardous material transportation 
     regulations by encouraging more inspections of shipper 
     facilities affecting highway transportation and more 
     comprehensive inspections of the loads of CMVs transporting 
     hazardous materials. Removal of these State plan requirements 
     does not in any way diminish the obligation of the States 
     participating in this program to enforce commercial driver's 
     licensing requirements and hazardous materials transportation 
     regulations.

[[Page S2471]]

      Paragraph (d)(6) retains the requirement that a State plan 
     promote activities to remove impaired CMV drivers from the 
     highways through adequate enforcement of regulations on the 
     use of alcohol and controlled substances and the requirement 
     that a State plan provide an appropriate level of training to 
     State motor carrier safety assistance program officers and 
     employees on recognizing drivers impaired by alcohol or 
     controlled substances. Paragraph (d)(6) moves from 
     subparagraph 31102(b)(1)(P) to 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(1)(O) the 
     requirement that a State plan promote interdiction activities 
     affecting the transportation of controlled substances by CMV 
     drivers and provide training on appropriate strategies for 
     carrying out those interdiction activities. In addition, 
     paragraph (d)(6) amends subparagraph (O) to specify that a 
     State plan must promote activities that further national 
     safety priorities and performance goals.
       Paragraph (d)(7) strikes 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(1)(P), thereby 
     deleting the requirement that a State plan ensure that the 
     State will use trained and qualified officers and employees 
     of political subdivisions and local governments to enforce 
     commercial motor vehicle and hazardous material 
     transportation safety regulations. This requirement is being 
     removed because it duplicates language in the subsection 
     31104(f) as revised by this section. Clause (i) of 49 U.S.C. 
     31102(b)(1)(P) requiring that a State plan promote 
     interdiction activities affecting the transportation of 
     controlled substances by CMV drivers is retained, but is 
     moved to clause (iii) of 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(1)(O). Paragraph 
     (d)(7) also redesignates subparagraph 31102(b)(1)(Q) as 
     subparagraph 31102(b)(1)(P).
       Paragraph (d)(8) redesignates subparagraphs (A) through (M) 
     of 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(1) as subparagraphs (B) through (N). 
     This redesignation is necessary because of the addition of a 
     new element at the beginning of the list of required State 
     motor carrier safety plan components.
       Paragraph (d)(9) amends 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(1) to add a new 
     required element of the State Motor Carrier Safety Plan to 
     the beginning of the list of requirements. This new criterion 
     requires the State to propose in its plan to implement 
     performance-based programs by the year 2003. The requirement 
     that performance-based programs be in place by a certain date 
     ensures that State safety activities which were formerly 
     based on inputs are replaced by activities focused on 
     attaining solutions to existing problems.
       Subsection (e) amends section 31103 of 49 U.S.C. by adding 
     a new subsection to authorize the Secretary to reimburse 
     State agencies, local governments, or other persons for up to 
     100 percent of the cost of the activities specified in 49 
     U.S.C. 31104(f)(2). The activities referred to in that 
     paragraph are border enforcement and other high priority 
     activities. The preexisting language of 49 U.S.C. 31103 is 
     also redesignated as subsection (a).
       Paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) revise section 31104 of 49 
     U.S.C. to authorize that $83,000,000 be appropriated from the 
     Highway Trust Fund in each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 
     to carry out section 31102 of 49 U.S.C., i.e., to provide 
     States with grants to develop or implement programs for 
     improving motor carrier safety and the enforcement of Federal 
     and State regulations, standards, and orders regarding 
     commercial motor vehicle safety.
       Paragraph (f)(7) revises 49 U.S.C. 31104(b)(2) by replacing 
     the reference to section 404(a)(2) of the Surface 
     Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 with a reference to 
     paragraphs 4002(e)(1) and (2) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, to change an October 
     1, 1991, deadline to October 1, 1996, and to change an 
     October 1, 1992, deadline to October 1, 1997. These changes 
     remove out of date references and revise this paragraph to 
     provide that amounts made available under paragraphs 
     4002(e)(1) and (2) of the ISTEA prior to October 1996 that 
     are not obligated on October 1, 1997, are available for 
     reallocation and obligation.
       Paragraph (f)(8) revises 49 U.S.C. 31104(f) by deleting the 
     language authorizing the Secretary to designate specific 
     eligible States for an allocation of funds to be used for 
     research, development, and demonstration of technologies, 
     methodologies, analyses, or information systems designed to 
     implement programs for the enforcement of Federal and State 
     regulations, standards, and orders. The removal of this 
     specific allocation of funds will increase flexibility and 
     enable States to design programs to target their unique 
     problems. In addition, the language in subsection 31104(f) 
     authorizing the Secretary to allocate funds for education of 
     the motoring public on how to share the road safely with 
     commercial motor vehicles is also deleted by the revision in 
     paragraph (f)(8). Instead of the provisions described 
     above, paragraph (f)(8) substitutes a provision 
     authorizing the Secretary to designate up to 12 percent of 
     the funds available to improve motor carrier safety under 
     section 31102, to reimburse States for border enforcement 
     and other high priority activities and projects. This new 
     provision specifies that the Secretary may allocate this 
     12 percent, in coordination with State motor vehicle 
     safety agencies, to State agencies and local governments, 
     that use trained and qualified officers and employees, and 
     also to other persons for use in improving commercial 
     motor vehicle safety.
       Paragraph (f)(9) revises 49 U.S.C. 31104 by deleting 
     subsection (g). Subsection (g) required the Secretary to 
     allocate funding authorized under section 31104(a) for very 
     specific State activities. Eliminating these specific 
     allocations provides State grantees with more flexibility to 
     develop the best combination of activities to address their 
     unique safety concerns.
       Paragraph (f)(10) makes a technical amendment to 49 U.S.C. 
     31104(j) to remove the word ``tolerance'' as a descriptive 
     term to qualify the kinds of guidelines and standards which 
     the Secretary was directed by subsection (j) to prescribe.
       Paragraph (f)(11) revises 49 U.S.C. 31104 to strike 
     subsection (i) and thereby eliminate the requirement that the 
     Secretary prescribe regulations to develop an improved 
     formula and process for allocating amounts made available for 
     grants under section 31102(a) because the Secretary has 
     promulgated these regulations. A formula will be maintained 
     in these regulations.
       Subsection (g) revises 49 U.S.C. 31106 to include more 
     comprehensive provisions regarding motor carrier information 
     systems including the Commercial Vehicle Information System 
     (CVIS) and other motor carrier information systems and data 
     analysis programs which the Secretary is directed, in the 
     revised section 31106, to establish to facilitate the motor 
     carrier safety, regulatory, and enforcement activities 
     required under this title. Implementation of these 
     information systems and programs will provide the Secretary 
     and the States with the data and tools necessary to develop a 
     more analytical approach to motor carrier safety: these 
     systems and programs will enhance the focus on problem 
     companies, drivers, and employers by identifying safety 
     problems and potential countermeasures, determining the cost 
     effectiveness of State and Federal compliance, enforcement 
     programs, and other countermeasures, and providing the tools 
     and data necessary for evaluating the safety fitness of motor 
     carriers and drivers. The CVIS is to serve as a clearinghouse 
     and repository of information related to State registration 
     and licensing of commercial motor vehicles and the safety 
     system of the commercial motor vehicle registrants or the 
     motor carriers operating the vehicles. Under subparagraph 
     31106(a)(2)(C), the CVIS will link the Federal motor carrier 
     safety systems with State driver and commercial vehicle 
     registration and licensing systems. Paragraph 31106(a)(2) 
     also provides that the CVIS will be designed to enable States 
     to ascertain the safety fitness of a registrant or motor 
     carrier when issuing license plates, to allow States to 
     decide the types of sanctions, conditions, or limitations 
     that may be imposed on a registrant or motor carrier, to 
     monitor the safety fitness of a registrant or motor carrier, 
     and to require States, as a condition of participation in the 
     system, to possess or seek authority to impose commercial 
     motor vehicle registration sanctions on the basis of a 
     Federal safety fitness determination. Subparagraph 
     31106(a)(2)(D) provides that no more than $6,000,000 of the 
     funds authorized to carry out this section may be used in 
     each fiscal year to carry out paragraph 31106(a)(2). This 
     subparagraph also provides that the Secretary may authorize 
     the operation of the information system by contract, through 
     an agreement with one or more States, or by designating, 
     after consultation with the States, a third party, 
     representing the interests of the States.
       The new subsection 31106(b) of 49 U.S.C. authorizes the 
     Secretary to establish a program focusing on ways to improve 
     commercial motor vehicle driver safety. Approaches to be 
     taken in achieving this objective include enhancing the 
     exchange of licensing information among States, the Federal 
     government, and foreign countries, providing information to 
     the judicial system on the licensing program, and evaluating 
     any aspect of driver performance and safety as deemed 
     appropriate by the Secretary. The funds authorized to carry 
     out this section may be used to initiate pilot programs and 
     to support research studies. These funds will be made 
     available through grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, 
     or direct purchase.
       Subsection (c) of 49 U.S.C. 31106 authorizes the Secretary 
     to develop these information systems and carry out these 
     initiatives either independently or in cooperation with other 
     Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities or by 
     making grants to and entering into contracts and cooperative 
     agreements with States, localities, associations, 
     institutions, or corporations. To the maximum extent 
     practicable, the information systems and data collection 
     efforts conducted under 49 U.S.C. 31106 should be coordinated 
     with similar activities of other highway safety programs 
     authorized under title 23, U.S.C.
       Subsection (h) revises title 49, U.S.C., to remove a 
     preexisting section 31107, which authorized the Secretary to 
     make grants to States which agree to adopt or have adopted 
     the recommendations of the National Governors' Association 
     related to police accident reports regarding truck and bus 
     accidents. Subsection (h) replaces this provision with a new 
     section 31107 which authorizes that $17 million be 
     appropriated annually from the Highway Trust Fund to carry 
     out section 31106 for fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       Subsection (i) amends the heading for Subchapter I of 
     Chapter 311 of 49 U.S.C. The heading as amended reads as 
     follows: ``STATE GRANTS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
     PROGRAMS''.
       Subsection (j) revises the analysis for Chapter 311 of 49 
     U.S.C. to reflect the new headings for sections 31106 and 
     31107.

[[Page S2472]]

               TITLE V--INFRASTRUCTURE CREDIT ENHANCEMENT

     Sec. 5001. Short Title
       This section identifies a new Federal surface 
     transportation program as the Transportation Infrastructure 
     Credit Enhancement Act of 1997.
     Sec. 5002. Findings
       This section recites Congressional findings that current 
     public sector resources are insufficient to meet the Nation's 
     transportation infrastructure investment needs in both urban 
     and rural areas. These include building new facilities as 
     well as renovating or expanding existing facilities. The 
     funding gap is particularly acute for large projects of 
     National significance, due to their scale and complexity. A 
     new Federal credit enhancement program for transportation 
     infrastructure will help address these projects' special 
     needs by supplementing existing Federal programs and 
     leveraging private capital investment.
       This title is designed to encourage the development of 
     large, capital-intensive infrastructure facilities through 
     public-private partnerships consisting of a State or local 
     governmental project sponsor and one or more private sector 
     firms involved in the design, construction or operation of 
     the facility. The Federal credit enhancement program is 
     targeted to those projects whose financings are payable in 
     whole or in part by user charges, such as tolls, or other 
     dedicated funding sources. By taking advantage of the 
     public's willingness to pay user fees to receive the benefits 
     and services of transportation infrastructure sooner than 
     would be possible under traditional grant-based financing, 
     the program will result in a more efficient and equitable 
     allocation of the Nation's resources.
       The program should result in additional surface 
     transportation facilities being developed more quickly and at 
     a lower cost than would be the case under conventional public 
     procurement, funding and operation. In addition to the 
     benefits of enhanced accessibility in moving goods and 
     people, such transportation facilities should provide 
     benefits to the Nation in terms of stimulating job creation 
     and enhancing the Nation's economic competitiveness overseas.
     Sec. 5003. Definitions
       This section sets forth the definitions for terms used in 
     this title. Key terms are listed below: A ``Project'' is 
     defined as any publicly-owned surface transportation facility 
     eligible under the expanded provisions of title 23 as well as 
     chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code. Permitted 
     Projects would include free or tolled highways, bridges and 
     tunnels; mass transportation facilities and vehicles; inter-
     city passenger rail facilities and vehicles (including 
     Amtrak); publicly owned freight rail facilities; and various 
     intermodal facilities.
       The term ``Eligible Project Costs'' is defined to include 
     those costs of a capital nature incurred by a Project Sponsor 
     in connection with developing an infrastructure Project. 
     These costs fall into three categories: (i) pre-construction 
     costs relating to planning, design, and securing governmental 
     permits and approvals; (ii) hard costs relating to the design 
     and construction (or rehabilitation) of a Project; and (iii) 
     related soft costs associated with the financing of the 
     Project, such as interest during construction, reserve 
     accounts, and issuance expenses. It would not include 
     operation or maintenance costs.
       The term ``Project Obligation'' means any debt instrument 
     issued by a Project Sponsor in connection with the financing 
     of a Project.
       A ``Project Sponsor'' is defined as any entity (whether a 
     State or local governmental unit, a private entity authorized 
     by such governmental unit to develop a Project, or a public-
     private partnership) that is an issuer or obligor of debt 
     obligations used to finance a Project.
       A ``Revenue Stabilization Fund'' is defined as a reserve 
     account capitalized with Federal grants pursuant to this 
     title or contributions from other entities, which may be used 
     for the payment of principal of and interest on Project 
     Obligations.
     Sec. 5004. Determination of Eligibility and Project Selection
       This section defines the threshold eligibility criteria for 
     a Project to receive Federal credit enhancement and outlines 
     the basis upon which the Secretary will select among 
     potential candidates. The Secretary's determination of a 
     Project's eligibility will be based on both quantitative and 
     qualitative factors, and the Secretary should consult with 
     the Secretary of the Treasury in making this determination.
       Of prime importance, the Project must be deemed by the 
     Secretary to be ``nationally significant'' in terms of 
     facilitating the movement of people and goods in a more 
     efficient and cost-effective manner, resulting in major 
     economic benefits.
       Also, the Project sponsor must demonstrate that it cannot 
     obtain adequate financing on reasonable terms and conditions 
     from other sources in order to be eligible for Federal credit 
     enhancement. The Federal government's assistance is designed 
     to assist Projects which otherwise would have difficulty in 
     accessing the private capital markets to obtain the required 
     financing.
       To ensure that the Project enjoys both State and local 
     support, it must be included in the State's transportation 
     plan and program and, if the Project is in a metropolitan 
     area, it must satisfy all metropolitan planning requirements 
     of 23 U.S.C. 134. The State or a State-designated entity will 
     be responsible for forwarding the Project application to the 
     Secretary.
       In terms of size, the Project must cost at least 
     $100,000,000 or an amount equal to 50 percent of the State's 
     annual Federal-aid highway apportionments, whichever is less. 
     This two-fold test is designed to allow small and rural 
     States to accommodate Projects otherwise too large for their 
     transportation programs. Based on fiscal year 1997 
     apportionments, 18 States could qualify Projects costing less 
     than $100 million, with the minimum amount equaling 
     approximately $40 million.
       In addition, a Project must be supported at least in part 
     by user charges, such as tolls, or other dedicated revenue 
     sources to encourage the development of new revenue streams 
     and the participation of the private sector.
       Project applicants meeting the threshold eligibility 
     criteria then will be evaluated by the Secretary based on a 
     number of other factors. Among them are: the likelihood that 
     the Federal assistance will enable the Project to proceed at 
     an earlier date; the degree to which the Project leverages 
     non-Federal resources, including private sector capital; the 
     degree to which public benefits exceed public costs; and the 
     Project's overall creditworthiness.
       This section also provides that all requirements of titles 
     23 and 49, United States Code, shall apply to funds made 
     available under this title and Projects assisted with such 
     funds unless the Secretary determines that any such 
     requirement is inconsistent with any provision of this title. 
     This section provides, however, that the Secretary cannot 
     waive 23 U.S.C. 113, the provision that applies Davis Bacon 
     Act wage requirements to title 23 projects, 23 U.S.C. 114, 
     concerning convict labor, and the labor protection provisions 
     which are found in 49 U.S.C. 5333. This section does not 
     affect the Secretary's responsibilities under any other 
     Federal law.
     Sec. 5005. Revenue Stabilization Funds
       This section authorizes the Secretary to make grants to 
     Project Sponsors to capitalize Revenue Stabilization Funds. A 
     Project's Revenue Stabilization Fund could be drawn upon if 
     needed to pay debt service on the Project's debt obligations 
     in the event of revenue shortfalls. The Revenue Stabilization 
     Fund may be used to secure junior lien debt or other 
     obligations requiring credit enhancement, as determined by 
     the Secretary. Limiting the Revenue Stabilization Funds to 
     these types of obligations is designed to maximize the 
     Project's ability to leverage private capital, and assist it 
     in obtaining investment grade ratings on its senior debt.
       The principal amount of the deposit could not exceed 20 
     percent of Eligible Project Costs. Moneys in the Fund are to 
     be invested in U.S. Treasury securities or other prudent 
     investments approved by the Secretary, with interest earnings 
     credited to the Revenue Stabilization Fund. Beginning five 
     years after the Project is completed, amounts in the Fund in 
     excess of the level needed to secure the Project Obligations 
     may be applied to pay other Eligible Project Costs, with the 
     approval of the Secretary.
       This section also provides that Project Obligations secured 
     by the Revenue Stabilization Fund are not considered 
     federally guaranteed under the tax code, enabling the Fund to 
     back both taxable and tax-exempt debt.
       The Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury in devising rules for the implementation of this 
     section.
     Sec. 5006. Rules and Regulations
       Program guidelines will be established by the Secretary in 
     order to ensure the program operates prudently and 
     efficiently, including requiring Project Sponsors to provide 
     annual audits.
     Sec. 5007. Funding
       The sum of $100 million per year between FY 1998 and FY 
     2003 is authorized to fund the Transportation Infrastructure 
     Credit Enhancement Program.


                           TITLE VI--RESEARCH

                    PART A--PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

     Sec. 6001. Research, Development, and Technology
       This section adds a new chapter 52 to subtitle III of title 
     49, United States Code. Among the critical challenges the 
     Department faces is the need for strategic investment in the 
     Nation's surface transportation infrastructure. Chapter 52 
     addresses this challenge by strengthening the Department's 
     efforts in intermodal and multimodal research and 
     development. It recognizes that improvements in the surface 
     transportation infrastructure require attention to 
     crosscutting research in areas such as nondestructive 
     testing, information technologies, urban transportation, the 
     future transportation workforce, and the environment.
       New chapter 52 is divided into subchapters. Subchapter I 
     supplements existing administrative authorities. New section 
     5201 provides the Secretary general authority to enter into 
     grants, cooperative agreements, and other transactions with 
     states, industry, educational or other non-profit 
     institutions, and other entities to further the objectives of 
     the chapter. The Department strives to leverage its research 
     dollars through cost-sharing with the private sector. Major 
     disincentives to cost-sharing in the research

[[Page S2473]]

     area have been the allocation of data rights and the 
     limitations of standard financial management and intellectual 
     property provisions. Cooperative agreements and other 
     transactions provide needed flexibility to achieve cost-
     sharing in the Department's research programs. This provision 
     would fill gaps in existing Departmental authority.
       New section 5202 streamlines the procurement process for 
     transportation research and development to be conducted by 
     institutions of higher education that have already competed 
     for transportation grants under this chapter. This approach 
     follows the example of the successful pilot developed by the 
     Federal Aviation Administration under the National 
     Performance Review Laboratory, whereby universities which had 
     prevailed in full and open competition for award of grants as 
     Aviation Centers of Excellence were eligible to receive sole 
     source contracts for related activities. This provided 
     additional incentive to prospective proposers in the 
     competition and facilitated the Department's ability to take 
     advantage of its investment in the national centers of 
     excellence. Additional grants and contracts authorized by 
     section 5202 will be limited to work that is consistent with 
     the original grant. These additional awards would not require 
     specific justification under the Competition in Contracting 
     Act.
       New subchapter II provides for the planning necessary for 
     the success of long-term research  and development. New 
     section 5221 requires the Secretary to establish a 
     strategic planning process to determine national 
     priorities for transportation research and development, 
     coordinate Federal activities in the area, and evaluate 
     the impact of the Federal investment. In planning, the 
     Secretary must consider the concept of seamless 
     transportation, innovation, and the need to compete 
     globally. The Secretary has broad discretion in 
     implementation and may, if appropriate, use an interagency 
     executive council or a board of science advisors.
       New subchapter III establishes a research and technology 
     program within the Department to concentrate on intermodal 
     and multimodal issues. The program recognizes that much of 
     the research sponsored by the Department focuses on 
     individual modes of transportation and that there is a need 
     for research and technology development that is truly 
     intermodal or multimodal in nature.
       New subchapter IV addresses both current research needs and 
     the need for a transportation workforce capable of meeting 
     the challenges of transportation in the future. New section 
     5241 consolidates and modifies the two programs currently 
     authorized by sections 5316 and 5317 of title 49: the 
     University Research Institutes and the University 
     Transportation Centers. It would continue the ten regional 
     university transportation centers. The current array of 
     national centers and institutes, each of which concentrates 
     on a particular transportation issue specified in statute, 
     would be consolidated into a single system. This system 
     authorizes the Secretary to fund up to ten national centers 
     whose themes are designated by the Secretary to meet national 
     transportation needs. Selection of all centers would be by 
     open competition. The centers conduct transportation research 
     that is widely disseminated. The centers also conduct 
     education and training, not only to attract highly qualified 
     graduate and undergraduate students into transportation-
     related fields, but also to expose current transportation 
     practitioners to developments in transportation theory and 
     practice. The new authorizing language incorporates existing 
     practice and provides needed flexibility for the program. For 
     example, centers which perform transit-related research would 
     now be allowed to meet requirements for the ``match'' of 
     grant funds provided under this section with operating funds 
     provided by mass transit authorities whose potential for 
     sponsoring such research might otherwise be limited.
     Sec. 6002. Bureau of Transportation Statistics
       Subsection (a)(a1). The provision relating to the term of 
     the first Director of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics 
     is stricken as being obsolete.
       Subsection (a)(2). The list of topics to be covered by 
     statistics compiled by the Bureau is expanded to include 
     transportation-related variables influencing global 
     competitiveness, recognizing the growing importance of 
     international trade to the nation's economy, the impact of 
     international trade on domestic transportation facilities and 
     services, and the impact of transportation on the ability of 
     domestic U.S. businesses to reach foreign markets.
       Subsection (a)(3). The Director's responsibilities for long 
     term data collection are to be coordinated with other efforts 
     in support of the Government Performance and Results Act 
     (GPRA), which was passed subsequent to ISTEA and extends 
     beyond the efforts to develop surface transportation system 
     performance indicators under 23 USC 307(b)(3). The Director 
     is to ensure that the long term data collection is made 
     relevant to States and metropolitan planning organizations in 
     recognition of their increased role in transportation 
     decision making.
       Subsection (a)(4). Also in support of the GPRA, BTS will 
     report to the Secretary on the sources and reliability of 
     statistics from DOT modal Administrations required by the Act 
     and for other purposes.
       Subsection (a)(5). This amendment provides that the 
     Director's responsibilities for providing statistics is 
     specifically tied to the support of transportation decision 
     making. This assures that the Bureau's activities are 
     relevant and provides a basis for evaluating the Bureau under 
     the Government Performance and Results Act.
       Subsection (a)(6). This paragraph would amend section 111 
     by deleting an obsolete subsection relating to functions 
     performed by the first Director of BTS and by adding four new 
     subsections. New subsection (d) would clarify the content of 
     the Intermodal Transportation Data Base, originally specified 
     in section 5002 of ISTEA (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 5503(d)). 
     That provision will be repealed by a conforming amendment 
     (see below). In response to a General Accounting Office 
     concern with a lack of universally accepted definitions of 
     intermodal transportation, the data base is made inclusive of 
     movements by competing and complementary modes of 
     transportation as well as by intermodal combinations. The 
     original requirements for data on patterns of passenger and 
     commodity movements are clarified to include international 
     and local movement as well as intercity movements, since all 
     levels of movement affect transportation facilities of 
     national significance. The original requirement for 
     information on public and private investments in intermodal 
     transportation facilities and services was open to many 
     interpretations, particularly with respect to the level of 
     geographic specificity. Initial experience with developing 
     the data base demonstrated that facility-level data was 
     obtainable and useful for locational characteristics, but 
     that investment-related data was cost-effective to develop 
     only for national and industry aggregates. The requirement is 
     clarified to include locational and connectivity data for 
     facilities and services, and national data on expenditures 
     and capital stocks.
       New subsection (e) codifies in law the goals and purpose of 
     the Bureau's existing National Transportation Library, as 
     referenced in the Senate Report of the FY 1997 DOT 
     appropriations bill. The goals and purpose are consistent 
     with other national libraries, such as the Library of 
     Medicine.
       New subsection (f) codifies the general content of the 
     Bureau's National Transportation Atlas Data Base (NTAD), 
     developed in response to needs of the transportation 
     community and to the National Spatial Data Infrastructure 
     (NSDI) under Executive Order 12906. The NTAD is to be capable 
     of integration with other government maintained 
     transportation databases, such as the Census TIGER files and 
     the U.S. Geological Survey DLG files. BTS also will assume  
     leadership for the development of a national ground 
     transportation data base as an Executive Order 12906 
     framework data layer for the NSDI and will coordinate with 
     the Census Bureau, the Geological Survey, and other 
     appropriate Federal agencies.
       New subsection (g) would authorize the Bureau to establish 
     grants and cooperative agreements with public and not-for-
     profit private organizations to conduct research and 
     development in support of the Bureau's major activities, 
     including the Transportation Statistics Annual Report, data 
     collection, the National Transportation Library, and the 
     National Transportation Atlas Data Base.
       Subsection (a)(7). This subsection would enhance the 
     current provision governing the protection of confidentiality 
     of data provided to the Bureau. General protections provided 
     by the ISTEA were not specific to statistical agencies, and 
     are not adequate to protect the privacy of respondents. 
     Stronger protections are necessary to enhance the 
     respondent's confidence that sensitive information will not 
     be compromised, thus ensuring respondent cooperation with the 
     Bureau's data collection efforts. The confidentiality 
     provisions are based on those applicable to the Bureau of the 
     Census.
       Subsection (a)(8). The January 1, 1994 due date for the 
     initial Transportation Statistics Annual Report is removed as 
     obsolete and the requirement that BTS file its report by 
     January 1 of each year is deleted. The Bureau obtains most 
     data for its report each year by December, and prepares most 
     analyses of the data by January. However, because editing and 
     production of the report require additional time, the January 
     1 deadline is impractical.
       Subsection (a)(9). This paragraph add two new subsections 
     to section 111. New subsection (k) is based on the provisions 
     in the FY1996 and FY1997 DOT Appropriations Acts that allow 
     the Bureau to retain funds from the sale of products. New 
     subsection (l) provides for funding of the Bureau's 
     activities in the amount of $31 million from the Highway 
     Trust Fund per fiscal year for fiscal years 1998 through 
     2003, with a limitation of $500,000 per year for grant 
     activities under new subsection (g). As under ISTEA, it also 
     provides contract authority for such funds.
       Subsection (b). This paragraph makes a conforming amendment 
     to 49 U.S.C. 5503 regarding the responsibility of the Bureau 
     to establish an intermodal transportation data base. This 
     requirement is clarified and incorporated into section 111 by 
     the amendment contained in subsection (a)(5).
     Sec. 6003. Research and Technology Program
        This section revises 23 U.S.C. 307 as indicated below.
       Preamble: Subsection (a)(1) is a new preamble defining the 
     Secretary's general authority under the section to develop 
     and administer programs for research, technology, and 
     education.
       Authority of the Secretary; In General: Subsection 
     (a)(2)(A) grants authority to the Secretary to engage in 
     research, 

[[Page S2474]]

     development, and technology transfer activities with respect 
     to motor carrier transportation and all phases of highway 
     planning and development. This is the same as current law at 
     23 U.S.C. Sec. 307(a)(1)(A), but renumbered.
       Cooperation, Grants, and Contracts: Subsection (a)(2)(B) 
     authorizes the Secretary to carry out the research and 
     technology program independently or through cooperative 
     agreements, grants, contracts, and other transactions. This 
     is similar to current 23 U.S.C. Sec. 307(a)(1)(B).
       Technical Innovation: Subsection (a)(2)(C) requires the 
     Secretary to develop and administer programs to facilitate 
     the application of the products of research and technical 
     innovations to improve the safety, efficiency, and 
     effectiveness of the highway system. This program may 
     encompass products from all available sources, including the 
     private sector and both the domestic and international 
     communities.
       Funds: Subsection (a)(2)(D) replaces the provision 
     currently at 23 U.S.C. Sec. 307(a)(3)(A), expands it to 
     include a ``use of funds'' clause that opens up use of funds 
     for activities necessary to interact with, or deliver 
     technology to, DOT customers and partners, and drops 23 
     U.S.C. Sec. 307(a)(3)(B), Minimum Expenditures on Long-Term 
     Research Projects, which is covered under a separate section.
       Collaborative Research and Development: Subsection (a)(3), 
     currently 23 U.S.C. Sec. 307(a)(2), authorizes the Secretary 
     to undertake and continue, on a cost-shared basis, 
     collaborative research and development with non-Federal 
     entities for the purposes of encouraging innovative solutions 
     to highway problems and stimulating the marketing of new 
     technology by private industry.
       Mandatory Contents of Program: Proposed subsection (b) 
     consolidates current law at 23 U.S.C. Sec. 307(b), dropping 
     subsection (b)(2), SHRP Results, which is recaptured in a new 
     section; dropping subsection (b)(4), Short Haul Passenger 
     Transportation Systems, which required a report to Congress 
     by January 15, 1993; and dropping (b)(5)(C) which required 
     submission to Congress by July 1, 1992, a report with 
     recommendations regarding the need for a construction 
     equipment research and development program.
     Sec. 6004. National Technology Deployment Initiatives
       This new section establishes a National Technology 
     Deployment Initiatives Program to significantly expand the 
     adoption of innovative technologies by the surface 
     transportation community in seven goal areas. Progress 
     reports to the Congress are required at 18 and 48 months. 
     More specifically:
       Establishment: Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to 
     develop and administer a National Technology Deployment 
     Initiatives program to significantly expand the adoption of 
     innovative technologies by the surface transportation 
     community. Deployment Goals: Subsection (b) outlines the 
     deployment goals of the program to be carried out under 
     this subsection. For each of these goals, described in (1) 
     through (7), the Secretary will work with representatives 
     of the transportation community to develop strategies and 
     initiatives to achieve the goal.
       Reporting: Subsection (c) mandates reports to the House of 
     Representatives and Senate on progress and results or 
     activities carried out under this section not later than 18 
     months after enactment and then another at 48 months.
       Funding: Subsection (d) directs the Secretary to expend 
     from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the mass transit 
     account) $56,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal 
     years 1998, 1999, and 2000, and $84,000,000 for years 2001, 
     2002, and 2003. The Secretary is authorized to allocate the 
     funds to States for their use.
       Leveraging of Resources: Under subsection (e), the 
     Secretary is directed to give preference to projects that 
     leverage Federal funds against resources from other sources.
       Contract Authority: Subsection (f) makes funds authorized 
     by this subsection applicable for obligation in the same 
     manner as if apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, U.S.C.; 
     except that the Federal share of the cost of any activity 
     shall be determined in accordance with this section and such 
     funds shall be available for obligation for a period of three 
     years after the last day of the fiscal year for which such 
     funds are authorized. Furthermore, the Secretary may waive 
     application of any provision of title 23 that is a barrier to 
     the use of new technology if he determines such waiver is not 
     contrary to the public interest and will advance technical 
     innovation. Any waiver shall be published in the Federal 
     Register with reasons for such waiver.
     Sec. 6005. Professional Capacity-Building and Technology 
         Partnerships
       This new section brings together technology transfer 
     programs and activities, including education and training 
     efforts, that focus on equipping people to use new 
     technologies. Private agencies, international and foreign 
     entities, and individuals shall pay the full cost of any such 
     training, education, technical assistance, or other support 
     provided through these programs and activities in accordance 
     with this section.
       Local Technical Assistance Program: Subsection (a) provides 
     significant changes to this program. First, contractors 
     working for local and tribal governments are specifically 
     called out as customers of the program. Then the number of 
     tribal centers is changed from 2 to 4 to better reflect the 
     number of centers able to benefit from this program. The 
     major change is in funding. The new proposed amount is 
     $12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 from 
     the Highway Trust Fund.
       Local Technical Assistance Program: This section authorizes 
     the Secretary to carry out a transportation assistance 
     program to provide modern highway technology to highway and 
     transportation agencies in urbanized areas with populations 
     between 50,000 and 1,000,000 and in rural areas, and to the 
     contractors doing work for them. This is similar to current 
     law at 23 U.S.C. Sec. 326(a), but adds contractors.
       Grants, Cooperative Agreements, and Contracts: Subsection 
     (a)(2) allows the Secretary to make grants and enter into 
     cooperative agreements and contracts for education and 
     training. This is similar to current law at 23 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 326(b), and provides the option for cooperative 
     agreements.
       Subsection (a)(2)(A) defines the training grants, 
     cooperative agreements, and contracts allowed as those that 
     assist rural local transportation agencies and tribal 
     governments, and the consultants and construction personnel 
     working for them, to develop and expand their expertise in 
     specific areas. This is similar to current law at 23 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 326(b)(1), but adds an option for training in 
     intergovernmental transportation planning and project 
     selection, in place of development of a tourism or 
     recreational travel program, which has been completed. This 
     provision also adds reference to the consultants and 
     construction personnel employed by local agencies.
       Subsection (a)(2)(C) allows grants, cooperative agreements, 
     and contracts that will operate, in cooperation with State 
     transportation agencies and universities (i) technical 
     assistance program centers to provide technology transfer to 
     rural areas and urban areas of more than 50,000 people, and 
     (ii) not fewer than four centers designated to provide 
     transportation technology assistance to American Indian 
     tribal governments. This is similar to current law at 23 
     U.S.C. Sec. 326, but specifies grants, agreements, and 
     contracts that will operate, rather than establish, the 
     centers that are described in (i) and (ii).
       Subsection (a)(2)(D) allows grants, cooperative agreements, 
     and contracts with local transportation agencies and tribal 
     governments and the private sector to enhance new technology 
     implementation.
       Funding: Under subsection (a)(3), the sum of $12,000,000 
     per fiscal year is authorized from the Highway Trust Fund to 
     provide funding for the program and for technical and 
     financial support to the technology transfer centers. This is 
     similar to current law at 23 U.S.C. Sec. 326(c), but raises 
     the funding level to $12,000,000 per fiscal year of the 
     period of authorization and directs the funds to be deducted 
     from the Highway Trust Fund.
       Contract Authority: Subsection (a)(4) is new and defines 
     the applicability of title 23 to these funds, thereby 
     providing contract authority.
       National Highway Institute: Section (b) codifies current 23 
     U.S.C. Sec. 321 as a separate section, with several changes. 
     The basic change raises the set-aside for State training 
     programs from 1/16 to\1/4\ of 1 percent. Fees may still be 
     collected from States, but are not required.
       Subsection (b)(1)(A) and (B) describe the establishment, 
     duties, and programs of the NHI. This is the same as current 
     law, except that subsection (b)(1)(B) expands current law to 
     acknowledge that the Institute's programs with industry are 
     growing, and that the Institute administers education, as 
     well as training programs.
       Set-Aside; Federal Share: Subsection (b)(2) directs that 
     not more than\1/4\ of 1 percent of all funds apportioned to a 
     State under 104(b)(3) for the surface transpor- 

[[Page S2475]]

     tation program shall be available for the State 
     transportation agencies' payment for up to 80 percent of the 
     cost of their employees' educational expenses. This is 
     similar to current law at 23 U.S.C. Sec. 321(b), but raises 
     the percentage of set-aside funds from 1/16 of 1 percent.
       Federal Responsibility: Subsection (b)(3) permits education 
     and training of Federal, State, and local highway employees 
     be provided (A) by the Secretary at no cost; or (B) by the 
     State through grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts; 
     except that private agencies, international entities, and 
     individuals shall pay the full cost of education and training 
     unless the Secretary determines a lower cost to be in the 
     best interest of the United States. This is similar to 
     current law, but subsection (b)(3)(A) is expanded to apply to 
     all training the current provision that training in ``those 
     subject areas which are a Federal Programs Responsibility'' 
     may be provided without charge to States and local 
     government. Subsection (b)(3)(B) allows education and 
     training to be paid by the State through cooperative 
     agreements, in addition to grants and contracts, and adds 
     international entities to those that must pay the full cost 
     of education and training. An added clause allows the 
     Secretary to reduce charges to private agencies, 
     international entities, or individuals when in the U.S. 
     interest to do so. The Secretary shall use this authority 
     very sparingly, and any reduction in costs should be done 
     only upon strong justification that such reduction is in the 
     national interest, such as in conjunction with NAFTA.
       Training Fellowships; Cooperation: Subsection (b)(4) 
     authorizes the Institute to engage in all phases of contract 
     authority, including the granting of training fellowships, 
     independently or in cooperation with other entities. This is 
     the same as current law at 23 U.S.C. Sec. 321(d).
       Collection of Fees: Subsection (b)(5)(A) through (C) 
     describes the Institutes collection of fees, including 
     limitations, persons subject to fees, and the amount of fees 
     allowed. This is the same as current law at 23 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 321(e).
       Funds: Subsection (b)(6) authorizes funds to support the 
     NHI from the Highway Trust Fund in the amount of $8,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2000, and $14,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
       Contract Authority: Subsection (b)(7) defines the 
     applicability of title 23 to funds, providing contract 
     authority for this program. This is a revision of current 
     law.
       Contracts: Under subsection (b)(8), the provision of 
     section 3709 of the Revised Statutes shall not be applicable 
     to contracts or agreements made under this section. This is 
     similar to current law at 23 U.S.C. Sec. 321(g).


       Dwight David Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Program

       Subsection (c) law is currently at 23 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 307(a)(1)(C)(ii).
       General Authority: Subsection (c)(1) allows the Secretary 
     to make grants for research fellowships for any purpose for 
     which research, technology, or capacity building is 
     authorized by this section. This is the same as current law, 
     but adds references to technology and capacity building.
       Subsection (c)(2) provides for the implementation of the 
     Eisenhower Transportation fellowship for the purpose of 
     attracting qualified students to the field of transportation. 
     Further, fellowships are to be offered at the junior through 
     postdoctoral levels of college education, and recipients must 
     be U.S. citizens. This is similar to current law, but 
     provides for the implementation of the fellowship, rather 
     than establishment and implementation. The program's purpose 
     is to attract students to the general field of 
     transportation, rather than specifically attracting 
     transportation engineering and research students. Reference 
     to proposed funding level has been cut, and students eligible 
     for the fellowships have been defined as those U.S. citizens 
     in their junior through postdoctoral levels of college.
       Funding: Subsection (c) also authorizes $2,000,000 from the 
     Highway Trust Fund for each of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2003, and provides contract authority for such program.


                 Technology Implementation Partnerships

       This provision sets forth, as a separate subsection, 
     language that is similar to 23 U.S.C. Sec. 307(b)(2) that 
     essentially provides for continued support of efforts to 
     implement the products of the Strategic Highway Research 
     Program and to begin to address the new technical innovations 
     coming out of the Long-Term Pavement Performance program.
       Authority: Subsection (d)(1) directs the Secretary to 
     continue close partnerships established through the Strategic 
     Highway Research Program and administer a program to move 
     technology and innovation into common practice.
       Subsection (d)(2)(A) through (D) authorizes the Secretary 
     to make grants and enter into cooperative agreements and 
     contracts to foster alliances and support efforts to bring 
     about technical change in high-payoff areas through defined 
     approaches.
       Funding: Subsection (d) also authorizes $11,000,000 per 
     fiscal year out of the Highway Trust Fund for each of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2003 to carry out this section.
     Sec. 6006. Long-Term Pavement Performance and Advanced 
         Research
       This section sets forth a new, revised section continuing 
     and revising the Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) 
     program currently codified at 23 U.S.C. Sec. 307(b)(3), and 
     establishes a new Advanced Research program.
       Authority: Subsection (a)(1) directs the Secretary to 
     continue the LTPP, now at the mid-point of its 20-year 
     schedule, to completion.
       Grants, Cooperative Agreements, and Contracts: Subsection 
     (a)(2) identifies elements of the program for which 
     procurement arrangements may be initiated.
       Funding: Subsection (a)(3) and (4) provide for funding the 
     program from the Highway Trust Fund at $15,000,000 each of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       Advanced Research; Authority: Subsection (b)(1) requires 
     the Secretary to establish a program to address longer-term, 
     higher-risk research.
       Subsection (b)(2) identifies, but does not limit, areas for 
     advanced research.
       Funding: Subsection (b)(3) funds the program at $10,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2000, and $20,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003, from the Highway 
     Trust Fund.
     Sec. 6007. State Planning and Research Program (SP&R)
       This section sets forth a new section in title 23, which 
     incorporates, with revisions, subsection 307(c) of title 23, 
     United States Code.
       Subsection (a)(1) defines the general rule, which directs 
     that 2 percent of the funds apportioned for the National 
     Highway System, congestion management and air quality 
     improvement program, surface transportation program, 
     Interstate reimbursement, Interstate maintenance, and highway 
     bridge replacement and rehabilitation programs for each 
     fiscal year of the period of authorization be available for 
     expenditure by the State transportation agency for specified 
     purposes. Language has been added to correct an oversight in 
     ISTEA that resulted in SP&R funds not being set aside from 
     the Interstate reimbursement program which replaced the 
     Interstate construction program from which SPR funds were 
     previously set aside.
       Subsection (a)(1) of this section makes SP&R funding 
     available for engineering and economic surveys, same as 
     current law.
       Subsection (a)(2) makes SP&R funding available for 
     metropolitan, statewide and non-metropolitan planning, 
     including planning for highway, public transportation, and 
     intermodal transportation systems. It revises current law by 
     adding metropolitan and non-metropolitan planning, which is a 
     technical change because these funds are currently eligible 
     for planning and research for these areas.
       Subsection (a)(3) makes SP&R funding available for 
     development and implementation of management systems, similar 
     to current law, with added reference to section 303 of title 
     23 where the management systems are described.
       Subsection (a)(4) makes SP&R funding available for studies 
     of the economy, safety, and convenience of highway, public 
     transportation, and intermodal transportation usage, same as 
     current law.
       Subsection (a)(5) makes SP&R funding available for 
     necessary studies, research, development, and technology 
     transfer activities. It is similar to existing law, with 
     revisions to clarify that States may use SP&R funds to 
     support training on engineering standards and construction 
     materials, including evaluation and accreditation of 
     inspection and testing of engineering standards and 
     construction materials.
       Subsection (b) requires minimum expenditures on research, 
     development, and technology transfer activities of not less 
     than 25 percent of the apportioned funds, unless the State 
     certifies otherwise to the Secretary and the Secretary 
     accepts such certification. It also includes an exemption for 
     SP&R research funds from the assessment under the

[[Page S2476]]

     Small Business Research and Development Act (Public Law 102-
     564).
       Subsection (c) requires that the Federal share shall be 80 
     percent with discretion for the Secretary to adjust the non-
     Federal share if it is in the interests of the Federal-aid 
     highway program, same as existing law.
       Subsection (d) requires that, while the SP&R funds are 
     derived from those program apportionments to each State 
     specified in subsection (a)(1), the Secretary shall combine 
     and administer the funds as single fund.
     Sec. 6008. Use of BIA Administrative Funds
       This section corrects a section reference.


         PART B--INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ACT OF 1997

       Sections 6051-6058 replace the sections 6051-6059 of Title 
     VI, Part B of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (``ITS Act of 1991''), Public Law 102-
     240. Reference is made to provisions of these sections which 
     are being retained, modified, or deleted.
     Section 6051. Short title and Preamble
       Subsection 6051(b) designates the name of title VI as the 
     Intelligent Transportation systems Act of 1997 (ITS Act).
       Subsection 6051(b) sets forth the purpose of the ITS Act of 
     1997: to provide for accelerated deployment of proven 
     technologies and concepts and increased Federal commitment to 
     improving surface transportation safety.
     Section 6052. Definitions: Conforming Amendment
       Consistent with new program directions, the definitions in 
     section 6058 of the ITS Act of 1991 are continued and 
     expanded to add the following newly-defined terms: 
     Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure, National 
     Architecture, NHS (National Highway System), National 
     Program Plan, CVO (Commercial Vehicle Operations), CVISN 
     (Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks), 
     ARTS (Advanced Rural Transportation Systems), and ITS 
     Collision Avoidance Systems. This section also amends 
     ISTEA to strike part B of title VI.
     Section 6053. Scope of Program
       Subsection 6053(a) in part extends the expiring provisions 
     of the ITS Act of 1991 with respect to research, development 
     and operational testing of intelligent transportation systems 
     (ITS), and in part adds a new focus on deployment.
       Subsection 6053(b) restates and updates the goals and 
     related authorities of the ITS Act of 1991. The changes make 
     explicit the existing authorities in titles 23 and 49 of the 
     United States Code under which broad ITS program goals, 
     including research and provision of technical and financial 
     assistance, may be undertaken as part of the general 
     programs. The subsection restates program goals to reflect 
     current priorities, including optimizing existing facilities 
     to meet future transportation needs, emphasizing safety, 
     improving the economic efficiency of surface transportation 
     systems, improving public accessibility to goods and 
     services, and developing standards and protocols.
     Section 6054. General Authorities and Requirements
       Subsection 6054(a) modifies the provisions of the ITS Act 
     of 1991 which seeks to foster cooperation between State and 
     local governments and the private sector by increasing the 
     emphasis on the widespread deployment of intelligent 
     transportation systems (ITS), while continuing Federal 
     leadership in research and technical assistance. A reference 
     to involving Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 
     other Minority Institutions of Higher Education in work 
     undertaken by the program is added.
       Subsection 6054(b) restates and extends the ITS Act of 1991 
     by directing the Secretary not only to continue to develop 
     and implement national standards and protocols but also to 
     act to secure permanent spectrum allocation for Dedicated 
     Short Range Communications, recognizing the importance of 
     ensuring availability of a common vehicle-to-wayside wireless 
     communications capability for ITS applications.
       Subsection 6054(c) directs the Secretary to provide 
     independent and objective evaluation of field and related 
     operational tests in order to ensure credible results and 
     avoid actual or apparent conflicts-of-interest.
       Subsections 6054(d) and 6054(e) continue the provisions of 
     the ITS Act of 1991 as they relate to the Information 
     Clearinghouse and Advisory Committees.
       Subsection 6054(f) is added to make explicit the authority 
     of States and eligible local entities to utilize funds 
     authorized under certain existing sections of titles 23 and 
     49 of the United States Code to carry out implementation, 
     modernization and operational activities involving 
     intelligent transportation infrastructure and systems as 
     mainstream program activities.
       Subsection 6054(g) is added to require conformity with the 
     National Architecture and ITS-related standards and 
     protocols. It is envisioned that the Secretary will establish 
     on an annual basis which standards and protocols are required 
     to be used. This subsection also provides an exception from 
     this requirement for DOT-sponsored research project, to 
     enable the Department to explore and test a wide range of 
     activities, including non-conforming approaches.
       Subsection 6054(h) seeks to assure that flexibility 
     provided under NEXTEA to allow Federal-aid funding of 
     operations and maintenance costs for ITS projects is 
     effectively used by requiring life-cycle cost analyses when 
     Federal funds are to be used to reimburse operations and 
     maintenance costs and the estimated initial cost of the 
     project to public authorities exceeds $3,000,000.
       Subsection 6054(i) directs the Secretary to develop 
     guidance and technical assistance on appropriate procurement 
     methods for ITS projects, including innovative and non-
     traditional methods.
     Section 6055. ITS National Program Plan, Implementation and 
         Report to Congress
       Subsection 6055(a) mandates the updating of the ITS 
     National Program Plan on an as-needed basis, and details the 
     scope of the Plan, which reflects a new focus on deployment 
     and monitoring, development of standards, and achieving 
     desired surface transportation system performance levels.
       Subsection 6055(b) provides for accelerated development and 
     operational testing, in cooperation with industry, of 
     demonstration advanced vehicle control systems and, in 
     particular, for equipping one or more fleets for field 
     evaluations of safety benefits and user acceptance by 2002.
       Subsection 6055(c) requires an implementation report on the 
     National Program Plan no later than one year after the date 
     of the enactment of the ITS Act of 1997 and biennially 
     thereafter. Two reports on the Nontechnical Constraints to 
     the deployment of intelligent transportation systems called 
     for by the ITS Act of 1991 have been completed and future 
     updates can be incorporated as part of the National Program 
     Plan Report, therefore separate reports on these issues are 
     discontinued.
     Section 6056. Technical, Training, Planning, Research and 
         Operational Testing Project Assistance
       Subsection 6056(a) permits the Secretary to provide 
     technical assistance, including training, to state and local 
     government agencies interested in effectively considering, 
     planning, implementing, operating, and maintaining ITS 
     technologies and services. Technical assistance may include 
     guidance on incorporating ITS into Statewide and metropolitan 
     area transportation plans, revising State and local laws and 
     ordinances to enable ITS services, use of innovative 
     financing and acquisition strategies, and a wide range of 
     other activities designed to assist State and local 
     government agencies to effectively deploy ITS in an 
     integrated, interoperable fashion.
       Subsection 6056(b) authorizes the Secretary to provide 
     financial assistance and technical support for planning and 
     consideration of metropolitan and statewide ITS operations 
     and management issues.
       Subsection 6056(c) continues eligibility of commercial 
     vehicle regulatory agencies, traffic management entities, 
     independent authorities, and other entities contracted by a 
     State or local agency for ITS project work, to receive 
     Federal assistance under this part.
       Subsection 6056(d) ties operational testing to specific 
     national research objectives and authorizes the Secretary to 
     provide funding to Federal agencies as well as to non-Federal 
     entities, including HBCU's and other Minority Institutions of 
     Higher Education. The Secretary is to provide highest 
     priority to projects that (A) contribute to the goals of the 
     National Program Plan under Sec. 6055, (B) will minimize the 
     relative percentage and total amount of Federal 
     contributions, (C) conform to the National Architecture and 
     ITS standards and protocols, (D) emphasize collision 
     avoidance products, (E) demonstrate innovative public-private 
     partnering arrangements, and (F) validate the effectiveness 
     of ITS in enhancing the safety and efficiency of surface 
     transportation in both rural and metropolitan areas.
     Section 6057. Applications of Technology
       Subsection 6057(a) discontinues the designated IVHS 
     Corridors Program and replaces it with one-time, limited-term 
     ITI Deployment Incentives to promote deployment of 
     integrated, multi-modal transportation systems throughout the 
     Nation. Currently designated Priority Corridors are eligible 
     for the Deployment Incentives Program. In metropolitan areas, 
     the funding provided under this section would be used 
     primarily to fund activities designed to integrate existing 
     intelligent transportation infrastructure elements or those 
     installed with other sources of funds, including Federal-aid 
     funds. For commercial vehicle projects and projects outside 
     metropolitan areas, funding provided under this section could 
     be used to also install, as well as integrate, intelligent 
     transportation infrastructure elements.
       Subsection 6057(b) establishes priorities for funding 
     projects under this section. At least 25 percent of the funds 
     made available are to be allocated for implementation of 
     border crossing applications and commercial vehicle 
     information systems; and at least 10% is to be made available 
     for ITI deployment outside metropolitan areas. Projects are 
     to accelerate deployment and commercialization of ITS, 
     realize the benefits of regionally integrated, intermodal 
     applications, including commercial vehicle operations and 
     electronic border crossing applications, and demonstrate 
     innovative approaches to overcoming nontechnical constraints.
       Subsection 6057(c) mandates that projects designated for 
     funding under this section shall (1) contribute to national 
     goals outlined in the ITS National Program Plan, (2) 
     demonstrate through written agreements a commitment to 
     cooperation among public agencies, multiple jurisdictions and 
     the private sector, (3) demonstrate commitment to a 
     comprehensive plan of fully integrated ITS deployment in 
     accordance with the national ITS architecture and established 
     ITS standards and protocols, (4) be part of approved

[[Page S2477]]

     State and metropolitan plans for transportation and air 
     quality implementation, (5) catalyze private investment and 
     minimize Federal contributions under this section, (6) 
     include a sound financial plan for continued long-term 
     operations and maintenance, without continued reliance on 
     Federal ITS funds, and (7) demonstrate the capability or 
     planned acquisition of capability to effectively operate and 
     maintain the systems implemented.
       Subsection 6057(d) establishes annual award funding 
     limitations as follows: $15 million per metropolitan area; $2 
     million per rural project; $5 million per CVISN project; and 
     no more than $35 million within any State.
     Section 6058. Funding
       The requirement for reports in section 6058 of the ITS Act 
     of 1991 has been fulfilled and is not extended.
       Section 6058 authorizes funding and provides under contract 
     authority for fiscal years 1998 through 2003:
       (1) subsection 6058(a), for the ITI Deployment Incentives 
     Program, $100 million per year from the Highway Trust Fund 
     for fiscal years 1998-2003;
       (2) subsection 6058(b) for ITS Research and Program Support 
     Activities - $96 million per year from the Highway Trust Fund 
     for fiscal years 1998-2000, $130 million per year thereafter.
       Of the funds made available for Research and Program 
     Support Activities, the Secretary should use $25 million for 
     purposes of 6055(b) (demonstration and evaluation of 
     intelligent vehicle systems).
       These replace the requirements of the ITS Act of 1991 under 
     which 5 percent of the funds were to be available only for 
     high-risk innovative tests with significant potential to 
     accomplished long-term goals, which did not attract 
     substantial non-Federal commitments.
       Subsection 6058(c) continues the limitation in the ITS Act 
     of 1991 that the Federal share on account of activities 
     carried out under this part shall not exceed 80 percent of 
     the cost of the activities, except that the Secretary may 
     waive this limit for innovative activities under subsection 
     6058(b). In addition, the Federal share payable under the new 
     Deployment Incentives Program in subsection 6058(a) is 
     limited to 50 percent of the project cost, although the 
     matching funds can include funds from other Federal sources. 
     Subsection 6058(c) also provides that, for long range 
     research activities with private entities concerning the 
     demonstration of integrated intelligent vehicle systems under 
     subsection 6055(b) of this part, the Federal share is limited 
     to 50 percent of project costs.
       Subsection 6058(d) extends an expiring provision of the ITS 
     Act of 1991 confirming applicability of title 23 to funds 
     authorized under this part, and providing that the funds 
     authorized under this part shall remain available for 
     obligation for a period of 3 years after the last day of the 
     fiscal year for which such funds were authorized.


                           TITLE VII--REVENUE

     Sec. 7001. Short Title: Amendment of 1986 Code
       This section designates this title as the Surface 
     Transportation Revenue Act of 1997 and provides that 
     references in this title to a section or other provision are 
     references to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (title 26, 
     United States Code).
     Sec. 7002. Extension of Highway Related Use Taxes, 
         Exemptions, and Trust Fund
       This section provides a 6-year extension, through September 
     30, 2005, of Highway Trust Fund fuel taxes at their current 
     rates: 18.3 cents per gallon for gasoline and special fuel 
     and 24.3 cents per gallon for diesel fuel. Truck related 
     taxes--heavy vehicle use tax, truck tire tax, and retail tax 
     on heavy trucks and trailers are also extended at their 
     current rates.
       All existing refunds and exemption provisions are extended 
     through September 30, 2005. These include reduced rates for 
     intercity bus fuel, gasohol, and other alcohol fuels. The 
     exemption provision for gasohol and other alcohol fuels were 
     extended so that their expiration dates would conform with 
     all other fuel tax provisions. Note that most refund or 
     exemption provisions such as farm gasoline, off-road business 
     gasoline, nonhighway diesel fuel, transit use, and State and 
     local government use have no expiration dates and do not 
     require extension.
       Authority for the transfer from the general fund to the 
     Highway Trust Fund of amounts equivalent to the Highway Trust 
     Fund share of the highway fuel and truck taxes is extended 
     through September 30, 2005. Amounts equivalent to tax 
     liabilities incurred before October 1, 2005, may be 
     transferred into the Trust Fund through June 30, 2006.
       Authorization to expend funds from the Highway Trust Fund 
     for to meet obligations incurred authorized in National 
     Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997 or 
     earlier highway authorization acts is extended through 
     September 30, 2003.
       The provision for charging the Highway Trust Fund for its 
     share of fuel tax refunds and credits and for all truck tax 
     refunds and credits is extended through June 30, 2006.
       Transfers of receipts from motorboat fuel taxes to the 
     Aquatic Resources Trust Fund and the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund are extended through September 30, 2003.
       Subsection (c) of this section amends the Internal Revenue 
     Code to eliminate section 9511, which establishes the 
     National Recreational Trails Trust Fund. While section 9511 
     was enacted in 1991, no funds have ever been credited to this 
     fund. Therefore this legislation has been stricken as 
     unnecessary.
       Subsection (d) addresses the use of motorboat fuel taxes 
     transferred from the Highway Trust Fund to the Boat Safety 
     Account (BSA) in the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, which 
     provides funds for the State Recreational Boating Safety 
     grant program administered by the Coast Guard. The statutory 
     authority for making expenditures from the BSA, which expires 
     March 31, 1998, is extended to October 1, 2004.
       For fiscal year 1998, the amount that would be transferred 
     into the BSA is $35,000,000. This assumes that $20,000,000 
     will be furnished under the Clean Vessel Act for Fiscal Year 
     1998, for a total of $55,000,000. Thereafter, the amount of 
     motorboat fuel taxes transferred to the BSA would be 
     $55,000,000, annually.
       Under the legislation, the entire amount transferred would 
     be available for expenditure to carry out the State 
     Recreational Boating Safety grant program. Permanent budget 
     authority is provided, so that the amounts transferred each 
     year are available without further appropriation.
       Currently, one-half of the amount transferred each year to 
     the Boat Safety Account is available for expenditures of the 
     Coast Guard for recreational boating safety services. The 
     conforming amendment would strike this distribution formula.
       Subsection (e) makes a necessary technical amendment of 
     section 4041(a)(1)(D)(i) to preserve the existing 1999 
     expiration date for motorboat diesel fuel taxes. Without this 
     amendment, the changes made to extend highway taxes in 
     section 4081 of the Code would, due to a cross-reference, 
     inadvertently extend the motorboat diesel fuel tax as well.
     Sec. 7003. Commuter Benefit
       26 U.S.C. section 132(f) exempts up to $165 per month for 
     parking and up to $65 per month for transit benefits or 
     commercial vanpool services from Federal and most State 
     income and payroll taxes, provided the employer offers only 
     these benefits and nothing else, such as taxable cash salary, 
     in lieu of the benefit. To qualify for the exemption, parking 
     must be provided by the employer, either accepted or not by 
     the employee, with no other options, including any taxable 
     options. This amendment would limit the choice to parking or 
     other taxable compensation.
     Sec. 7004. Mass Transit Account
       Section 7004 would amend 26 U.S.C. section 9503(e) to 
     extend the Mass Transit Account through September 30, 2003, 
     and to permit funding of all eligible purposes under the 
     Federal Transit assistance program, not just capital 
     projects, to receive funding from the Mass Transit Account. 
     In addition, it would change the test of Mass Transit Account 
     liquidity to the same test as is applied to the Highway 
     Account. At present the Mass Transit Account must meet a more 
     stringent test.
     Sec. 7005. Motor Vehicle Safety and Cost Savings Programs
       This section provides for Highway Trust Fund expenditures 
     for qualified projects and for motor vehicle safety and cost 
     savings programs.
     Sec. 7006. General Fund Transfers for Transportation-Related 
         Programs in Fiscal Years 1998-2003
       This section sets forth directions to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to transfer amounts from the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) to the general fund as 
     reimbursement for annual appropriations made for selected 
     transportation-related programs. The amount transfered each 
     year would equal the amount that Congress appropriates for 
     the listed accounts (transportation-related portion only). 
     The programs involved are: Department of Energy, ``Energy 
     Conservation'' account; Department of the Interior, U.S. Park 
     Service, ``Construction'' account; Department of the 
     Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, ``Construction'' account; 
     Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, 
     ``Reconstruction and Construction'' account, Department of 
     Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, ``National Forest System'' 
     account; Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
     ``Community Development Block Grant''; Environmental 
     Protection Agency, ``Environmental Programs and Management'' 
     account; Appalachian Regional Commission, ``Appalachian 
     Regional Commission'' account; and costs associated with the 
     procurement of Federal Alternative Fuels Acquisition.
       The consolidated annual amounts sought by the President's 
     FY 1998 Budget Request for transportation-related portions of 
     these programs are: FY98--$646 million; FY99--$583 million; 
     FY00--$583 million; FY01--$467 million; FY02--$467 million; 
     FY03--$467 million.


                  TITLE VIII--RAIL PASSENGER PROGRAMS

     Sec. 8001. Authorization of Appropriations
       This section revises section 24104 of the title 49, United 
     States Code, which authorizes appropriations to support the 
     various activities undertaken by Amtrak. Subsection (a) 
     authorizes appropriations for Amtrak's operating grants for 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2003 which will be derived from the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than from the Mass Transit 
     Account). These authorizations reflect decreasing Federal 
     financial support for Amtrak's operating expenses. After 
     2001, the operating grant would no longer be available to 
     offset Amtrak's operating losses

[[Page S2478]]

     other than for certain payments into the railroad retirement 
     and railroad unemployment trust fund.
       Subsection (b) authorizes appropriations for Amtrak's 
     capital programs (including the Northeast Corridor 
     Improvement Project) in the amount of $423,450,000 for each 
     of the fiscal years 1998 through 2003. Capital grant funds 
     would also be derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than 
     the Mass Transit Account). Sufficient capital funding is a 
     key component of Amtrak's program to eliminate its dependence 
     on Federal operating subsidies after fiscal year 2001.
       Subsection (c) contains a new authorization for 
     supplemental capital funding which represents additional 
     capital funding that would be made available to Amtrak 
     through the Secretary if the Secretary determines that Amtrak 
     is managing the corporation so as to operate within available 
     resources, including revenues, state, local and private 
     sector contributions, and Federal operating subsidies (in the 
     years for which a Federal operating subsidy is authorized). 
     The purpose of this program is to provide a strong incentive 
     for Amtrak to take the necessary actions to reduce spending, 
     increase revenues and operate in the most efficient and 
     effective manner. Amtrak could use the supplemental capital 
     funding to continue to make improvements in the capital 
     plant. The availability of the supplemental capital funding 
     would be tied to two specific tests. For the first year of 
     the program, fiscal year 1999, the funding would become 
     available only if the Secretary determined that Amtrak has 
     taken specific and measurable actions to reduce expenses and 
     increase revenues consistent with a plan to achieve the 
     operating subsidy reductions contemplated by the 
     authorizations for operating expenses included in subsection 
     (a) above. For fiscal years 2000-2003, the test would involve 
     a determination, based upon a report from Amtrak's 
     independent auditor, that during the penultimate fiscal year, 
     Amtrak's revenues plus the amount of operating assistance 
     authorized for that year equals or exceeds Amtrak's operating 
     expenses for that year. Therefore, the test of whether Amtrak 
     receives the funds in fiscal year 2000 would be based upon 
     its performance in fiscal year 1998. This two year lag is 
     made necessary because of the cycle of the appropriations 
     process. Fiscal year 1998 would be the last year for which 
     complete financial records are available during the 
     consideration of the fiscal year 2000 budget request by the 
     President and the Congress.
       Subsection (d) provides an avenue for determining the 
     appropriate expenditures that are included within the 
     definition of capital investment. With the exception of the 
     inclusion of specific statutory authority to use capital 
     funds to cover debt service associated with long-term capital 
     investments, the terms ``operating expenses'' and ``capital 
     investments'' are to be defined and applied by Amtrak and the 
     Secretary in a manner consistent with the traditional 
     practices of the railroad industry as provided for in the 
     findings of the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
       Subsection (e) provides contract authority for the Amtrak 
     operating, railroad retirement/unemployment payments, capital 
     investment, and supplemental capital investment accounts by 
     specifically providing that the approval by the Secretary of 
     a grant or contract with funds made available for Amtrak is 
     to be deemed a contractual obligation of the United States.
       Subsection (f) provides that appropriated amounts remain 
     available until expended.
       Subsection (g) states that funds provided to Amtrak for 
     intercity rail passenger service may not be used to fund 
     operating losses for rail freight services or commuter rail 
     services.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Rhode 
Island, Mr. Chafee, to introduce the Clinton administration's 
legislation to re-authorize the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991, or ISTEA.
  I applaud the administration's proposal as a sincere effort to 
reauthorize ISTEA under the principles of intermodalism, environmental 
protection, sound community planning, and safety, that have made this 
innovative transportation act work so well these past 6 years. I do not 
agree with all of the details of administration plan--the formulas used 
to distribute funds to each State based on the Federal fuel taxes 
collected in that State are an unfortunate departure from the need-
based formulas in all other Federal programs. The President's proposal, 
however, preserves the basic ISTEA framework and represents a good 
starting point as we begin considering the reauthorization of ISTEA.
  I also intend to join with a bipartisan group of colleagues later 
this month to introduce our own proposal to re-authorize ISTEA. This 
proposal would reauthorize the key provisions of ISTEA--which was 
crafted to promote intermodal, economically efficient, and 
environmentally sound incentives in Federal transportation policy--
through more fully needs-based formulas.
  ISTEA has worked, and its reauthorization will be more important for 
the economy than any other transportation bill since the Federal-Aid 
Highway Act of 1956. Our goal should be now to make a good law better.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 469. A bill to designate a portion of the Sudbury, Assabet, and 
Concord Rivers as a component of the National Wild and Scenic River 
System; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


        SUDBURY, ASSABET, AND CONCORD WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing the 
Sudbury, Assabet and Concord [SuAsCo] Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 
Congressman Marty Meehan will introduce the companion bill today in the 
House. His bill will be cosponsored by the entire Massachusetts 
delegation as well as colleagues from New Hampshire and Connecticut.
  The Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers area is rich in history and 
literary significance. It has been the location of many historical 
events, most notably the Battle of Concord in the Revolutionary War, 
that gave our great Nation its independence. The Concord River flows 
under the North Bridge in Concord, MA where, on April 18, 1775, 
colonial farmers fired the legendary ``shot heard around the world'' 
which signaled the start of the Revolutionary War.
  In later years, this scenic area was also home to many of our 
literary heroes including Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and 
Louisa May Alcott; their writing often focused on these bucolic rivers. 
Thoreau spent most of his life in Concord, MA where he passed his days 
immersed in his writing and enjoying the natural surroundings. He spoke 
of the Concord River when he wrote ``the wild river valley and the 
woods were bathed in so pure and bright a light as would have waked the 
dead, if they had been slumbering in their graves, as some suppose. 
There needs no strong proof of immortality.'' This area was held close 
to many an author's heart. It was a place of relaxation and inspiration 
for many.
  The SuAsCo bill would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to include 
a 29-mile segment of the Assabet, Concord, and Sudbury Rivers. Based on 
a report authorized by Congress in 1990 and issued by the National Park 
Service in 1995, these river segments were determined worthy of 
inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program. In its report, the 
SuAsCo Wild and Scenic Study Committee showed that this area has not 
only the necessary scenic, recreational and ecological value, but also 
the historical and literary value to merit the wild and scenic river 
designation. All eight communities in the area traversed by these river 
segments are supporting this important legislation.
  Our legislation is of minimal cost to the Federal Government, but by 
using limited Federal resources we can leverage significant local and 
State effort. Provisions in the bill limit the Federal Government's 
contribution to just $100,000 annually, with no more than a 50 percent 
share of any given activity. This is a concept that merits the support 
of Congress. Should our bill become law, the SuAsCo River Stewardship 
Council, in cooperation with Federal, State, and local governments 
would manage the land.
  We now have the opportunity to protect the precious 29-mile section 
of the Assabet, Sudbury, and Concord Rivers. This area is not only rich 
in ecological value but also in historical and literary value. I urge 
my colleagues to support this bill and through it to preserve this wild 
river valley for the enjoyment and instruction of all who live and work 
there, for visitors from throughout the Nation and, perhaps most 
importantly, for generations yet to come.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Kerry 
today in sponsoring legislation to designate a 29-mile segment of the 
Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers in Massachusetts as a component of 
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This proposal has the 
bipartisan support of the full Massachusetts congressional delegation--
Congressmen Martin T. Meehan, John F. Tierney, Edward J. Markey, J. 
Joseph Moakley, Joseph P. Kennedy II, William D. Delahunt, Richard E. 
Neal, James P. McGovern, Barney Frank, and John

[[Page S2479]]

W. Olver--as well as Representatives Christopher Shays and Nancy L. 
Johnson of Connecticut and Charles F. Bass and John E. Sununu of New 
Hampshire, who are introducing an identical bill in the House of 
Representatives today.
  The Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers have witnessed many 
important events in the Nation's history. Stone's Bridge and Four 
Arched Bridge over the Sudbury River date from pre-Revolutionary War 
days. On Old North Bridge over the Concord River, the ``shot heard 
'round the world'' was fired on April 19, 1775, to begin the 
Revolutionary War. At Lexington and Concord, the colonists began their 
armed resistance against British rule, and the first American 
Revolutionary War soldiers fell in battle.
  In the nineteenth century, the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers 
earned their lasting fame in the works of Ralph Waldo Emerson, 
Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Henry David Thoreau, all of whom lived in this 
area and spent a great deal of time on the rivers. Emerson cherished 
the Concord River as a place to leave ``the world of villages and 
personalities behind, and pass into a delicate realm of sunset and 
moonlight.''
  Hawthorne wrote ``The Scarlet Letter'' and ``Mosses from an Old 
Manse'' in an upstairs study overlooking the Concord River. He also 
enjoyed boating on the Assabet River, of which he said that ``a more 
lovely stream than this, for a mile above its junction with the 
Concord, has never flowed on Earth.''
  Thoreau delighted in long, solitary walks along the banks of the 
rivers amidst the ``straggling pines, shrub oaks, grape vines, ivy, 
bats, fireflies, and alders,'' contemplating humanity's relationship to 
nature. His journals describing his detailed observations of the flora 
and fauna in the area have inspired poets and naturalists to the 
present day, and helped to give birth to the modern environmental 
movement. By protecting the rivers, a future Thoreau, Emerson, or 
Hawthorne may one day walk along their shores and gain new inspiration 
from these priceless natural resources.
  In 1990, Congress authorized the National Park Service to issue a 
report to determine whether the three rivers are eligible for 
designation as wild and scenic rivers. Under the National Park 
Service's guidelines, a river is considered eligible for the 
designation if it possesses at least one ``outstanding remarkable 
resource value.'' In fact, the three rivers were found to possess five 
outstanding resource values--scenic, recreational, ecological, 
historical, and literary. The report also concluded that the rivers are 
suitable for designation based upon the existing local protection of 
their resources and the strong local support for their preservation.
  Our bill will protect a 29-mile segment of the Sudbury, Assabet, and 
Concord Rivers that runs through or along the borders of eight 
Massachusetts towns--Framingham, Sudbury, Wayland, Concord, Lincoln, 
Bedford, Carlisle, and Billerica. A River Stewardship Council will be 
established to coordinate the effort of all levels of government to 
strengthen protections for the river and address future threats to the 
environment. The legislation also requires at least a one-to-one non-
Federal match for any Federal expenditures, and contains provisions 
which preclude Federal takings of private lands. It is designed not to 
result in any additional Federal regulatory burden to private property 
owners along the protected river segments.
  Thoreau wrote in 1847 that rivers ``are the constant lure, when they 
flow by our doors, to distant enterprise and adventure* * * . They are 
the natural highways of all nations, not only levelling the ground and 
removing obstacles from the path of the traveller, but conducting him 
through the most interesting scenery.'' Standing on the banks of the 
Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers, as Thoreau often did, citizens 
today gain a greater sense of the ebb and flow of the Nation's history 
and enjoy the benefit of some of the most beautiful scenery in all of 
America. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, so that 
these three proud rivers will be protected for the enjoyment and 
contemplation of future generations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROTH (for himself and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 470. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make a 
technical correction relating to the depreciation on property used 
within an Indian reservation; to the Committee on Finance.


                    TECHNICAL CORRECTION LEGISLATION

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of Senator Moynihan 
and myself to introduce a bill that would correct a technical error 
originally contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. 
Specifically, the bill would correct the definition of the term 
``Indian reservation'' under section 168(j)(6) of the Internal Revenue 
Code. This definition of the term ``Indian reservation'' applies for 
purposes of determining the geographic areas within which businesses 
are eligible for special accelerated depreciation (sec. 168(j)) and the 
so-called Indian employment tax credit (sec. 45A) enacted in 1993. As I 
explain in further detail below, the bill corrects the definition of 
``Indian reservation'' for purposes of these special tax incentives so 
that, as Congress originally intended, the incentives are available 
only to businesses that operate on Indian reservations and similar 
lands that continue to be held in trust for Indian tribes and their 
members. It is my intent to incorporate the provisions of this bill 
into a larger bill, which I plan to introduce later this session, 
containing technical corrections to other recently enacted tax 
legislation.
  Section 168(j)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that the term 
``Indian reservation'' means a reservation as defined in either (a) 
section 3(d) of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(d)), 
or (b) section 4(10) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 
1903(10)). The cross-reference to section 3(d) of the Indian Financing 
Act of 1974 includes not only officially designated Indian reservations 
and public domain Indian allotments, but also all ``former Indian 
reservations in Oklahoma'' and all land held by incorporated Native 
groups, regional corporations, and village corporations under the 
provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Thus, contrary 
to Congress' intent in enacting the special tax incentives for Indian 
lands in 1993, the reference to ``former Indian reservations in 
Oklahoma'' in the Indian Financing Act of 1974 results in most of the 
State of Oklahoma being eligible for the special tax incentives, even 
though parts of such ``former Indian reservations'' no longer have a 
significant nexus to any Indian tribe. For instance, it is my 
understanding that the entire city of Tulsa may be located within a 
``former Indian reservation,'' such that any business operating in 
Tulsa qualifies for accelerated depreciation under present-law section 
168(j). Providing such a tax benefit to commercial activities with no 
nexus to a tribal community would frustrate Congress' intent to target 
special tax incentives to official reservations and similar lands that 
continue to be held in trust for Indians. Businesses located on 
official reservations and similar lands held in trust for Indians were 
provided special business tax incentives in order to counter the 
disadvantages historically associated with conducting commercial 
operations in such areas, which were expressly excluded from 
eligibility as empowerment zones or enterprise communities under the 
1993 act legislation (see Internal Revenue Code sec. 1393(a)(4)).
  The bill I am introducing today would modify the definition of 
``Indian reservation'' under section 168(j)(6) of the Internal Revenue 
Code by deleting the reference to section 3(d) of the Indian Financing 
Act of 1974. Consequently, the term ``Indian reservation'' would be 
defined under section 168(j)(6) solely by reference to section 4(10) of 
the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, which provides that the term 
``reservation'' means ``Indian country as defined in section 1151 of 
Title 18 and any lands, not covered under [section 1151], title to 
which is either held by the United States in trust for the benefit of 
any Indian tribe or individual or held by an Indian tribe or individual 
subject to a restriction by the United States against alienation'' (25 
U.S.C. 1903(10)). Section 1151 of Title 18, in turn, defines the term 
``Indian country'' as meaning ``(a) all land within the limits of any 
Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United

[[Page S2480]]

States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, 
including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all 
dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States 
whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, 
and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian 
allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, 
including rights-of-way running through the same'' (18 U.S.C. 1151).

  Accordingly, amending section 168(j)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code 
to define the term ``Indian reservation'' solely by reference to the 
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 would carry out Congress' original 
intent in enacting the special Indian tax incentives in 1993 by 
eliminating from eligibility those areas in Oklahoma which formerly 
were reservations but no longer satisfy the definition of a 
``reservation'' under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. It is my 
understanding that, even after amending section 168(j)(6) in this 
manner, numerous areas within Oklahoma will remain eligible for the 
special tax incentives because, even though such areas are not 
officially designated reservations, such areas nonetheless qualify as 
``Indian country'' under section 1151 of Title 18. Similarly, it is my 
understanding that lands held by Native groups under the provisions of 
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act also would qualify as ``Indian 
country" under section 1151 of Title 18. Thus, if section 168(j)(6) 
were amended to define ``Indian reservation'' solely by reference to 
the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, lands held under the Alaska 
Native Claims Settlement Act would continue to be eligible for the 
special Indian tax incentives. In this regard, it is my intent that, if 
it is brought to the attention of the tax-writing committees that there 
are any Indian lands that technically do not fall within the definition 
of ``Indian reservation'' under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 
but which could be made eligible for the special Indian tax incentives 
consistent with Congress' intent in 1993, then consideration will be 
given to further modifying the bill I am introducing today when it is 
incorporated into a larger technical corrections bill.
  The technical correction made by the bill would be effective as if it 
had been included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 
(that is, the technical correction would apply to property placed in 
service and wages paid on or after January 1, 1994). As a general 
matter, I oppose retroactive changes to the Internal Revenue Code. 
However, technical corrections to fix drafting errors in previously 
enacted tax legislation traditionally refer back to the original 
effective date to prevent taxpayers from receiving an unintended 
windfall. This bill corrects such a drafting error.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be introducing 
legislation with the chairman of the Committee on Finance, Senator 
Roth, to correct an unintended item contained in the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993. I want to thank the chairman for his 
leadership on this issue and associate myself with his statement.
  Mr. President, it recently came to our attention that Internal 
Revenue Code section 168(j), a provision intended to help attract 
private industry investment to Indian reservations and similar lands 
that continue to be held in trust for Indian tribes and their members 
is benefitting private investment on ``former Indian reservations'' 
having no current connection to any Indian tribe. As a result, we are 
introducing legislation today that would correct the definition of 
``Indian reservation,'' under Internal Revenue Code section 168(j)(6), 
so that these tax incentives are available only for businesses 
operating on Indian reservations and similar lands.
  Mr. President, it is important to note, as Chairman Roth did, that we 
wish to take into consideration any Indian lands that may technically 
not fall within the definition of ``Indian reservation,'' under the 
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, but which should be made eligible for 
these special investment incentives. Such situations should be brought 
to the attention of the tax-writing committees, and we will then 
consider further modifications as the bill moves through the 
legislative process.

                          ____________________