Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 35 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)

[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.

____________________