[House Report 104-246]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-246
_______________________________________________________________________


 
            NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT OF 1995

                                _______


 September 14, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


 Mr. Shuster, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2274]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 2274) to amend title 23, United 
States Code, to designate the National Highway System, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 
amended do pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National Highway 
System Designation Act of 1995''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Secretary defined.

                    TITLE I--NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Sec. 101. National Highway System designation.
Sec. 102. Distribution of fiscal year 1997 highway funds.
Sec. 103. Treatment of fiscal year 1997 transit funds.

                 TITLE II--HIGHWAY FUNDING RESTORATION

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 203. State high priority project restoration program.
Sec. 204. Rescissions.
Sec. 205. State unobligated balance flexibility.
Sec. 206. Minimum allocation.
Sec. 207. Relief from mandates.
Sec. 208. Definitions.

                  TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Distribution of transit operating assistance limitation.
Sec. 302. Accountability for high cost Federal-aid projects.
Sec. 303. Letters of intent and full financing grant and early systems 
work agreements.
Sec. 304. Report on capital projects.
Sec. 305. Repeal and modification of existing projects.
Sec. 306. Miscellaneous transit projects.
Sec. 307. Metropolitan planning for transit projects.
Sec. 308. Contracting for engineering and design services.
Sec. 309. Ferry boats and terminal facilities.
Sec. 310. Utilization of the private sector for surveying and mapping 
services.
Sec. 311. Formula grant program.
Sec. 312. Accessibility of over-the-road buses to individuals with 
disabilities.
Sec. 313. Alaska Railroad.
Sec. 314. Alcohol and controlled substances testing.
Sec. 315. Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures.
Sec. 316. Safety research initiatives.
Sec. 317. Public transit vehicles exemption.
Sec. 318. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program.
Sec. 319. Quality improvement.
Sec. 320. Applicability of transportation conformity requirements.
Sec. 321. Quality through competition.
Sec. 322. Applicability of certain vehicle weight limitations in 
Wisconsin.
Sec. 323. Treatment of Centennial Bridge, Rock Island, Illinois, 
agreement.
Sec. 324. Metric requirements and signs.
Sec. 325. ISTEA technical clarification.
Sec. 326. Metropolitan planning for highway projects.
Sec. 327. Non-Federal share for certain toll bridge projects.
Sec. 328. Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and 
surveys.
Sec. 329. National recreational trails.
Sec. 330. Identification of high priority corridors.
Sec. 331. High priority corridor feasibility studies.
Sec. 332. High cost bridge projects.
Sec. 333. Congestion relief projects.
Sec. 334. High priority corridors on National Highway System.
Sec. 335. High priority corridor projects.
Sec. 336. Rural access projects.
Sec. 337. Urban access and mobility projects.
Sec. 338. Innovative projects.
Sec. 339. Intermodal projects.
Sec. 340. Miscellaneous revisions to Surface Transportation and Uniform 
Relocation Assistance Act of 1987.
Sec. 341. Eligibility.
Sec. 342. Orange County, California, toll roads.
Sec. 343. Miscellaneous studies.
Sec. 344. Collection of bridge tolls.
Sec. 345. National driver register.
Sec. 346. Roadside barrier technology.
Sec. 347. Motorist call boxes.
Sec. 348. Repeal of national maximum speed limit compliance program.
Sec. 349. Elimination of penalty for noncompliance for motorcycle 
helmets.
Sec. 350. Safety rest areas.
Sec. 351. Exemptions from requirements relating to commercial motor 
vehicles and their operators.
Sec. 352. Traffic control signs.
Sec. 353. Brightman Street Bridge, Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts.

                      TITLE IV--TRUTH IN BUDGETING

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Budgetary treatment of Highway Trust Fund, Airport and Airway 
Trust Fund, Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and Harbor Maintenance Trust 
Fund.
Sec. 403. Safeguards against deficit spending out of Airport and Airway 
Trust Fund.
Sec. 404. Safeguards against deficit spending out of the Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund and Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Sec. 405. Applicability.

SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.

  In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
Transportation.

                    TITLE I--NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

SEC. 101. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION.

  Section 103 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after subsection (b) the following:
  ``(c) Initial Designation of NHS.--The National Highway System as 
submitted by the Secretary of Transportation on the map entitled 
`Official Submission, National Highway System, Federal Highway 
Administration', and dated September 1, 1995, is hereby designated 
within the United States, including the District of Columbia and the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
  ``(d) Modifications to the NHS.--
          ``(1) Proposed modifications.--The Secretary may submit for 
        approval to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
        the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
        Infrastructure of the House of Representatives proposed 
        modifications to the National Highway System. The Secretary may 
        only propose a modification under this subsection if the 
        Secretary determines that such modification meets the criteria 
        and requirements of subsection (b). Proposed modifications may 
        include new segments and deletion of existing segments of the 
        National Highway System.
          ``(2) Approval of congress required.--A modification to the 
        National Highway System may only take effect if a law has been 
        enacted approving such modification.
          ``(3) Required submissions.--
                  ``(A) Initial submission.--Not later than 180 days 
                after the date of the enactment of the National Highway 
                System Designation Act of 1995, the Secretary shall 
                submit under paragraph (1) proposed modifications to 
                the National Highway System. Such modifications shall 
                include a list and description of additions to the 
                National Highway System consisting of connections to 
                major ports, airports, international border crossings, 
                public transportation and transit facilities, 
                interstate bus terminals, and rail and other intermodal 
                transportation facilities.
                  ``(B) Congressional high priority corridors.--Upon 
                the completion of feasibility studies, the Secretary 
                shall submit under paragraph (1) proposed modifications 
                to the National Highway System consisting of any 
                congressional high priority corridor or any segment 
                thereof established by section 1105 of the Intermodal 
                Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 
                Stat. 2037) which was not identified on the National 
                Highway System designated by subsection (c).
          ``(4) Interim eligibility.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a 
                modification to the National Highway System which adds 
                to the National Highway System a connection to a major 
                port, airport, international border crossing, public 
                transportation or transit facility, interstate bus 
                terminal, or rail or other intermodal transportation 
                facility shall be eligible for funds apportioned under 
                section 104(b)(1) for the National Highway System if 
                the Secretary finds that such modification is 
                consistent with criteria developed by the Secretary for 
                such modifications to the National Highway System.
                  ``(B) Period of eligibility.--A modification to the 
                National Highway System which is eligible under 
                subparagraph (A) for funds apportioned under section 
                104(b)(1) may remain eligible for such funds only until 
                the date on which a law has been enacted approving 
                modifications to the National Highway System which 
                connect the National Highway System to facilities 
                referred to in subparagraph (A).''.

SEC. 102. DISTRIBUTION OF FISCAL YEAR 1997 HIGHWAY FUNDS.

  (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary shall not apportion or allocate, prior to August 1, 1997, any 
funds authorized to be appropriated or made available for fiscal year 
1997 under--
          (1) title 23, United States Code (other than sections 125 and 
        157), except amounts necessary for the administration of the 
        Federal Highway Administration under section 104(a);
          (2) title I or VI of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
        Efficiency Act of 1991 (other than sections 1103 through 1108);
          (3) title IV of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 
        1982; or
          (4) section 203(b) of this Act, relating to the State high 
        priority project restoration program; and
  (b) Minimum Allocation.--
          (1) Determination.--For purposes of determining allocations 
        under section 157(a)(4) of title 23, United States Code, the 
        Secretary shall treat apportionments and allocations that are 
        subject to subsection (a) as having been made on October 1, 
        1996.
          (2) Special rule.--Amounts made available under section 157 
        of such title in fiscal year 1997 shall not be obligated at a 
        rate higher than the historical rate of obligation of funds 
        made available under such section.

SEC. 103. TREATMENT OF FISCAL YEAR 1997 TRANSIT FUNDS.

  (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary shall not apportion or allocate prior to August 1, 1997, any 
of the funds authorized to be appropriated or made available for fiscal 
year 1997 under section 5338 of title 49, United States Code (other 
than amounts necessary for administrative expenses of the Federal 
Transit Administration).
  (b) Additional Limitation on Obligations.--Any funds appropriated 
after the date of the enactment of this Act to carry out sections 5303-
5306, 5308, 5310, 5311, 5313, 5314, 5317, 5320, 5327, 5334(a), and 
5334(c) of title 49, United States Code, and substitute transit 
projects under section 103(e)(4) of title 23, United States Code, and 
to carry out section 5309 of title 49, United States Code, may not be 
obligated before August 1, 1997.

                 TITLE II--HIGHWAY FUNDING RESTORATION

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Highway Funding Restoration Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

  (a) Findings.--Congress finds and declares that--
          (1) Federal infrastructure spending on highways is critical 
        to the efficient movement of goods and people in the United 
        States;
          (2) section 1003(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
        Efficiency Act of 1991 has been estimated to result in fiscal 
        year 1996 highway spending being reduced by as much as 
        $4,200,000,000;
          (3) such section 1003(c) will cause every State to lose 
        critical funds from the Highway Trust Fund that can never be 
        recouped; and
          (4) the funding reduction would have disastrous effects on 
        the national economy, impede interstate commerce, and 
        jeopardize the 40-year Federal investment in the Nation's 
        highway system.
  (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
          (1) to make the program categories in the current Federal-aid 
        highway program more flexible so that States may fund current, 
        high-priority projects in fiscal year 1996;
          (2) to eliminate programs that are not critical during fiscal 
        year 1996 and to reallocate funds so that the States will be 
        able to continue their core transportation infrastructure 
        programs;
          (3) to restore funding for exempt highway programs;
          (4) to ensure the equitable distribution of funds to 
        urbanized areas with a population over 200,000 in a manner 
        consistent with the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
        Efficiency Act of 1991; and
          (5) to suspend certain penalties that would be imposed on the 
        States in fiscal year 1996.

SEC. 203. STATE HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT RESTORATION PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--On October 1 of each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997, 
or as soon as possible thereafter, the Secretary shall allocate among 
the States the amounts made available to carry out this section for 
Interstate highway substitute, National Highway System, surface 
transportation program, Interstate, congestion mitigation and air 
quality improvement program, bridge, hazard elimination, and rail-
highway crossings projects.
  (b) Allocation Formula.--Funds made available to carry out this 
section shall be allocated among the States in accordance with the 
following table:

States:                                          Allocation Percentages
        Alabama................................................   1.80 
        Alaska.................................................   1.20 
        Arizona................................................   1.43 
        Arkansas...............................................   1.42 
        California.............................................   9.17 
        Colorado...............................................   1.27 
        Connecticut............................................   1.74 
        Delaware...............................................   0.39 
        District of Columbia...................................   0.52 
        Florida................................................   4.04 
        Georgia................................................   2.92 
        Hawaii.................................................   0.54 
        Idaho..................................................   0.70 
        Illinois...............................................   3.88 
        Indiana................................................   2.18 
        Iowa...................................................   1.27 
        Kansas.................................................   1.13 
        Kentucky...............................................   1.53 
        Louisiana..............................................   1.52 
        Maine..................................................   0.65 
        Maryland...............................................   1.68 
        Massachusetts..........................................   4.11 
        Michigan...............................................   2.75 
        Minnesota..............................................   1.69 
        Mississippi............................................   1.11 
        Missouri...............................................   2.28 
        Montana................................................   0.93 
        Nebraska...............................................   0.79 
        Nevada.................................................   0.69 
        New Hampshire..........................................   0.48 
        New Jersey.............................................   2.86 
        New Mexico.............................................   1.02 
        New York...............................................   5.35 
        North Carolina.........................................   2.62 
        North Dakota...........................................   0.64 
        Ohio...................................................   3.64 
        Oklahoma...............................................   1.36 
        Oregon.................................................   1.23 
        Pennsylvania...........................................   4.93 
        Rhode Island...........................................   0.56 
        South Carolina.........................................   1.42 
        South Dakota...........................................   0.69 
        Tennessee..............................................   2.00 
        Texas..................................................   6.21 
        Utah...................................................   0.73 
        Vermont................................................   0.43 
        Virginia...............................................   2.28 
        Washington.............................................   2.05 
        West Virginia..........................................   1.15 
        Wisconsin..............................................   1.90 
        Wyoming................................................   0.65 
        Puerto Rico............................................   0.46 
        Territories............................................  0.01. 

  (c) Effect of Allocations.--Funds distributed to States under 
subsection (b) shall not affect calculations to determine allocations 
to States under section 157 of title 23, United States Code, and 
sections 1013(c), 1015(a), and 1015(b) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
  (d) Period of Availability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, amounts made available to carry out this section shall be 
available for obligation for the fiscal year for which such amounts are 
made available plus the 3 succeeding fiscal years and shall be subject 
to the provisions of title 23, United States Code. Obligation 
limitations for Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction 
programs established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 and subsequent laws shall apply to obligations 
made under this section.
  (e) Special Rule for Urbanized Areas of Over 200,000.--
          (1) General rule.--The percentage determined under paragraph 
        (2) of funds allocated to a State under this section for a 
        fiscal year shall be obligated in urbanized areas of the State 
        with an urbanized population of over 200,000 under section 
        133(d)(3) of title 23, United States Code.
          (2) Percentage.--The percentage referred to in paragraph (1) 
        is the percentage determined by dividing--
                  (A) the total amount of the reduction in funds which 
                would have been attributed under section 133(d)(3) of 
                title 23, United States Code, to urbanized areas of the 
                State with an urbanized population of over 200,000 for 
                fiscal year 1996 as a result of the application of 
                section 1003(c) of the Intermodal Surface 
                Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; by
                  (B) the total amount of the reduction in authorized 
                funds for fiscal year 1996 that would have been 
                allocated to the State, and that would have been 
                apportioned to the State, as a result of the 
                application of such section 1003(c).
  (f) Limitation on Planning Expenditures.--One-half of 1 percent of 
amounts allocated to each State under this section in any fiscal year 
may be available for expenditure for the purpose of carrying out the 
requirements of section 134 of title 23, United States Code (relating 
to transportation planning). 1\1/2\ percent of the amounts allocated to 
each State under this section in any fiscal year may be available for 
expenditure for the purpose of carrying out activities referred to in 
subsection (c) of section 307 of such title (relating to transportation 
planning and research).
  (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated, out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 
Transit Account), to carry out this section $360,420,595 for fiscal 
year 1996 and $155,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.
  (h) Applicability of Chapter 1 of Title 23.--Except as otherwise 
provided in this section, funds allocated under this section shall be 
available for obligation in the same manner and for the same purposes 
as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United 
States Code.
  (i) Territories Defined.--In this section, the term ``territories'' 
means the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands.

SEC. 204. RESCISSIONS.

  (a) Rescissions.--Effective October 1, 1995, and after any necessary 
reductions are made under section 1003(c) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the following unobligated 
balances available on September 30, 1995, of funds made available for 
the following provisions are hereby rescinded:
          (1) $78,993.92 made available by section 131(c) of the 
        Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982.
          (2) $798,701.04 made available by section 131(j) of the 
        Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982.
          (3) $942,249 made available for section 149(a)(66) of the 
        Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 
        1987.
          (4) $88,195 made available for section 149(a)(111)(C) of the 
        Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 
        1987.
          (5) $155,174.41 made available for section 149(a)(111)(E) of 
        the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance 
        Act of 1987.
          (6) $36,979.05 made available for section 149(a)(111)(J) of 
        the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance 
        Act of 1987.
          (7) $34,281.53 made available for section 149(a)(111)(K) of 
        the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance 
        Act of 1987.
          (8) $164,532 made available for section 149(a)(111)(L) of the 
        Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 
        1987.
          (9) $86,070.82 made available for section 149(a)(111)(M) of 
        the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance 
        Act of 1987.
          (10) $52,834 made available for section 149(a)(95) of the 
        Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 
        1987.
          (11) $909,131 made available for section 149(a)(99) of the 
        Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 
        1987.
          (12) $3,817,000 made available for section 149(a)(35) of the 
        Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 
        1987.
          (13) $797,800 made available for section 149(a)(100) of the 
        Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 
        1987.
          (14) $2 made available by section 149(c)(3) of the Surface 
        Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987.
          (15) $44,706,878 made available by section 1012(b)(6) of the 
        Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
          (16) $15,401,107 made available by section 1003(a)(7) of the 
        Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
          (17) $1,000,000 made available by item number 38 of the table 
        contained in section 1108(b) of the Intermodal Surface 
        Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
          (18) $150,000,000 deducted by the Secretary under section 
        104(a) of title 23, United States Code.
          (19) $10,800,000 made available by section 5338(a)(1) of 
        title 49, United States Code.
  (b) Reductions in Authorized Amounts.--
          (1) Magnetic levitation.--Section 1036(d)(1) of the 
        Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 
        Stat. 1986) is amended--
                  (A) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``and'' after 
                ``1994,'';
                  (B) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``, 
                $125,000,000'' and all that follows through ``1997''; 
                and
                  (C) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``1996, and 
                1997'' and inserting ``and 1996''.
          (2) Highway safety programs.--Section 2005(1) of such Act 
        (105 Stat. 2079) is amended--
                  (A) by striking ``and'' the first place it appears 
                and inserting a comma; and
                  (B) by striking ``, 1995, 1996, and 1997'' and 
                inserting ``and 1995, and $146,000,000 for each of 
                fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
          (3) Effective Date.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1) 
        and (2) shall take effect on the day after the date on which 
        authorized funds for fiscal year 1996 are reduced as a result 
        of application of section 1003(c) of such Act.
  (c) Congestion Pricing Pilot Program Transfers.--After the date on 
which authorized funds for fiscal year 1996 are reduced as a result of 
application of section 1003(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991, the amounts made available for fiscal years 
1996 and 1997 to carry out section 1012(b) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1938) shall be 
available to carry out section 203 of this Act, relating to the State 
high priority restoration program.

SEC. 205. STATE UNOBLIGATED BALANCE FLEXIBILITY.

  (a) Reduction in Federal Funding.--
          (1) Notification of states.--On October 1, 1995, or as soon 
        as possible thereafter, the Secretary shall notify each State 
        of the total amount of the reduction in authorized funds for 
        fiscal year 1996 that would have been allocated to such State, 
        and that would have been apportioned to such State, as a result 
        of application of section 1003(c) of the Intermodal Surface 
        Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
          (2) Exclusion of certain funding.--In determining the amount 
        of any reduction under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
        deduct--
                  (A) the amount allocated to each State in fiscal year 
                1996 to carry out section 203 of this Act, relating to 
                the State high priority project restoration program; 
                and
                  (B) any amounts made available under section 
                157(a)(4)(B)(iii) of title 23, United States Code, for 
                fiscal year 1996.
  (b) Unobligated Balance Flexibility.--Upon request of a State, the 
Secretary shall make available to carry out projects described in 
section 203(a) of this Act in fiscal year 1996 an amount not to exceed 
the amount determined under subsection (a) for the State. Such funds 
shall be made available from authorized funds that were allocated or 
apportioned to such State and were not obligated as of September 30, 
1995. The State shall designate on or before November 1, 1995, or as 
soon as possible thereafter which of such authorized funds are to be 
made available under this section to carry out such projects. The 
Secretary shall make available before November 15, 1995, or as soon as 
possible thereafter funds designated under the preceding sentence to 
the State.
  (c) Special Rule for Urbanized Areas of Over 200,000.--Funds which 
were apportioned to the State under section 104(b)(3) of title 23, 
United States Code, and attributed to urbanized areas of a State with 
an urbanized population of over 200,000 under section 133(d)(3) of such 
title may only be designated by the State under subsection (b) if the 
metropolitan planning organization designated for such area concurs, in 
writing, with such designation.
  (d) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Balances.--States may 
designate under subsection (b) funds apportioned under section 
104(b)(2) of title 23, United States Code, and not obligated as of 
September 30, 1995, to carry out projects described in section 203(a) 
of this Act only if such funds will be obligated in areas described in 
section 104(b)(2) of such title or, in the case of a State which does 
not include such an area, the funds may be obligated in any area of the 
State.
  (e) Interstate Construction Balances.--A State may not designate 
under subsection (b) any more than \1/3\ of funds apportioned or 
allocated to the State for Interstate construction and not obligated as 
of September 30, 1995.
  (f) Period of Availability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, amounts designated under subsection (b) shall be available for 
obligation for the same period for which such amounts were originally 
made available for obligation and shall be subject to the provisions of 
title 23, United States Code. Obligation limitations for Federal-aid 
highways and highway safety construction programs established by the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and subsequent 
laws shall apply to obligations made under this section.
  (g) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section 
shall be construed to affect calculations to determine allocations to 
States under section 157 of title 23, United States Code, and sections 
1013(c), 1015(a), and 1015(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991.
  (h) State.--In this section and section 203, the term ``State'' has 
the meaning such term has under section 401 of title 23, United States 
Code.

SEC. 206. MINIMUM ALLOCATION.

  (a) Formula.--Section 157(a)(4) of title 23, United States Code, is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``In fiscal'' and inserting the following:
                  ``(A) In general.--In fiscal'';
          (2) by inserting ``funds authorized to be appropriated by 
        subsection (f)'' after ``shall allocate'';
          (3) by moving subparagraph (A), as designated by paragraph 
        (1) of this subsection, 2 ems to the right; and
          (4) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(B) Additional allocation.--If the aggregate amount 
                allocated to the States under subparagraph (A) after 
                application of section 1003(c) the Intermodal Surface 
                Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 for any fiscal 
                year beginning after September 30, 1995, is less than 
                the amount authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
                this section for such fiscal year, then the excess of 
                such authorized amount shall be allocated as follows:
                          ``(i) The Secretary shall first allocate to 
                        each State such amount as may be necessary to 
                        increase the allocation under subparagraph (A) 
                        to the amount that would have been allocated to 
                        the State for such fiscal year if the full 
                        amount of the funds authorized to be 
                        appropriated for such fiscal year by such Act 
                        out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
                        Mass Transit Account) were appropriated without 
                        regard to such section 1003(c).
                          ``(ii) If any of such excess remains after 
                        the allocation under clause (i), the Secretary 
                        shall allocate to each State such amount as may 
                        be necessary so that the amount authorized to 
                        be appropriated for such fiscal year for each 
                        project to be carried out in such State under 
                        sections 1103 through 1108 of such Act without 
                        regard to section 1003(c) of such Act is 
                        available for the project.
                          ``(iii) The Secretary shall allocate among 
                        the States any excess remaining after the 
                        allocations under clauses (i) and (ii) so that 
                        each State is allocated the following 
                        percentages of the remaining excess:

                ``States:                                  Percentages 
                        Alabama................................   1.80 
                        Alaska.................................   1.20 
                        Arizona................................   1.43 
                        Arkansas...............................   1.42 
                        California.............................   9.17 
                        Colorado...............................   1.27 
                        Connecticut............................   1.74 
                        Delaware...............................   0.39 
                        District of Columbia...................   0.52 
                        Florida................................   4.04 
                        Georgia................................   2.92 
                        Hawaii.................................   0.54 
                        Idaho..................................   0.70 
                        Illinois...............................   3.88 
                        Indiana................................   2.18 
                        Iowa...................................   1.27 
                        Kansas.................................   1.13 
                        Kentucky...............................   1.53 
                        Louisiana..............................   1.52 
                        Maine..................................   0.65 
                        Maryland...............................   1.68 
                        Massachusetts..........................   4.11 
                        Michigan...............................   2.75 
                        Minnesota..............................   1.69 
                        Mississippi............................   1.11 
                        Missouri...............................   2.28 
                        Montana................................   0.93 
                        Nebraska...............................   0.79 
                        Nevada.................................   0.69 
                        New Hampshire..........................   0.48 
                        New Jersey.............................   2.86 
                        New Mexico.............................   1.02 
                        New York...............................   5.35 
                        North Carolina.........................   2.62 
                        North Dakota...........................   0.64 
                        Ohio...................................   3.64 
                        Oklahoma...............................   1.36 
                        Oregon.................................   1.23 
                        Pennsylvania...........................   4.93 
                        Rhode Island...........................   0.56 
                        South Carolina.........................   1.42 
                        South Dakota...........................   0.69 
                        Tennessee..............................   2.00 
                        Texas..................................   6.21 
                        Utah...................................   0.73 
                        Vermont................................   0.43 
                        Virginia...............................   2.28 
                        Washington.............................   2.05 
                        West Virginia..........................   1.15 
                        Wisconsin..............................   1.90 
                        Wyoming................................   0.65 
                        Puerto Rico............................   0.46 
                        Territories............................  0.01. 

                  ``(C) Territories defined.--In this paragraph, the 
                term `territories' means the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
                American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern 
                Mariana Islands.''.
  (b) Special Rule for Urbanized Areas of Over 200,000 in Fiscal Years 
1996 and 1997.--Section 157 of such title is amended--
          (1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsection 
        (e) and (f), respectively, and
          (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
  ``(d) Special Rule for Urbanized Areas of Over 200,000 in Fiscal 
Years 1996 and 1997.--
          ``(1) General rule.--The percentage determined under 
        paragraph (2) of funds allocated to a State under subsection 
        (a)(4)(B)(iii) for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997 shall be 
        obligated in urbanized areas of the State with an urbanized 
        population of over 200,000 under section 133(d)(3).
          ``(2) Percentage.--The percentage referred to in paragraph 
        (1) is the percentage determined by dividing--
                  ``(A) the total amount of the reduction in funds 
                which would have been attributed under section 
                133(d)(3) to urbanized areas of the State with an 
                urbanized population of over 200,000 for fiscal year 
                1996 as a result of the application of section 1003(c) 
                of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
                of 1991; by
                  ``(B) the total amount of the reduction in authorized 
                funds for fiscal year 1996 that would have been 
                allocated to the State, and that would have been 
                apportioned to the State, as a result of the 
                application of such section 1003(c).''.
  (c) Funding.--Section 157(f) of such title, as redesignated by 
subsection (b), is amended by inserting before the period the 
following: ``and before October 1, 1995, $1,101,000,000 for fiscal year 
1996, $1,378,000,000 for fiscal year 1997''.

SEC. 207. RELIEF FROM MANDATES.

  (a) Management Systems.--The Secretary shall not take any action 
pursuant to or enforce the provisions of section 303(c) of title 23, 
United States Code, with respect to any State during fiscal year 1996.
  (b) Asphalt Pavement Containing Recycled Rubber.--Section 1038 of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
1987-1990) is amended--
          (1) by striking subsection (d); and
          (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).

SEC. 208. DEFINITIONS.

  In this title, the following definitions apply:
          (1) Authorized funds.--The term ``authorized funds'' means 
        funds authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust 
        Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out title 
        23, United States Code (other than sections 402 and 410) and 
        the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
        and subject to an obligation limitation.
          (2) Urbanized area.--The term ``urbanized area'' has the 
        meaning such term has under section 101(a) of title 23, United 
        States Code.

                  TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSIT OPERATING ASSISTANCE LIMITATION.

  (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any limitation otherwise imposed on 
operating assistance under section 5307 of title 49, United States 
Code, the Secretary shall distribute such limitation so that each 
urbanized area (as such term is defined under section 5302 of such 
title) that had a population under the 1990 decennial census of the 
United States of less than 200,000 will receive, under the distribution 
of such limitation for fiscal year 1996, 75 percent of the amount the 
area received under the distribution of such limitation for fiscal year 
1995.
  (b) Consideration.--In the distribution of the limitation referred to 
in subsection (a) to urbanized areas that had a population under the 
1990 decennial census of 1,000,000 or more, the Secretary shall direct 
each such area to give priority consideration to the impact of 
reductions in operating assistance on smaller transit authorities 
operating within the area and to consider the needs and resources of 
such transit authorities when the limitation is distributed among all 
transit authorities operating in the area.

SEC. 302. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HIGH COST FEDERAL-AID PROJECTS.

  (a) Requirements.--The Secretary shall require each recipient of 
Federal financial assistance for a highway or transit project with an 
estimated total cost of $1,000,000,000 or more to submit to the 
Secretary an annual financial plan. Such plan shall be based on 
detailed annual estimates of the cost to complete the remaining 
elements of the project and on reasonable assumptions, as determined by 
the Secretary, of future increases in the cost to complete the project.
  (b) Recommendations on Withholding of Assistance.--As part of an 
annual report to be submitted under subsection (c), the Secretary shall 
make a recommendation to Congress on whether or not future Federal 
assistance should be withheld with respect to any project described in 
subsection (a) for which an annual financial plan is not submitted 
under subsection (a) or for which the Secretary determines that the 
estimates or assumptions referred to in subsection (a) are not 
reasonable.
  (c) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress an annual report 
on the financial plans submitted to the Secretary under this section, 
and any recommendation made by the Secretary under subsection (b), in 
the preceding fiscal year.

SEC. 303. LETTERS OF INTENT AND FULL FINANCING GRANT AND EARLY SYSTEMS 
                    WORK AGREEMENTS.

  Section 5309(g) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
          (1) by indenting and dropping paragraph (1) down 1 line;
          (2) by moving all the paragraphs, subparagraphs, and clauses 
        of such section 2 ems to the right;
          (3) by inserting after ``(1)'' the first place it appears the 
        following: ``Letters of intent.--'';
          (4) in paragraph (1)(B) by striking ``Public Works and 
        Transportation'' and inserting ``Transportation and 
        Infrastructure'';
          (5) by inserting after (2) the first place it appears ``Full 
        financing grant agreements.--'';
          (6) by inserting after (3) the first place it appears ``Early 
        system work agreements.--'';
          (7) by inserting after (4) the first place it appears ``Total 
        estimated future obligations and contingent commitments.--''; 
        and
          (8) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) Preauthorization of full federal financial 
        responsibility.--
                  ``(A) In general.--After the date of the enactment of 
                this paragraph and before the date on which Federal-aid 
                highway and transit programs are reauthorized, the 
                Secretary of Transportation may not issue a letter of 
                intent, or enter into a full financing grant agreement 
                or early systems work agreement, under this section for 
                a project or operable segment of a project unless the 
                full amount of Federal financial responsibility for the 
                project or operable segment of a project has been 
                included in an authorization law.
                  ``(B) Limitation.--The prohibition on entering into a 
                full financing grant agreement under this paragraph 
                shall not apply--
                          ``(i) to any project for which a letter of 
                        intent was issued before the date of the 
                        enactment of this paragraph; and
                          ``(ii) to any project included as an element 
                        of an interrelated project which also includes 
                        another project for which a letter of intent 
                        was issued before such date of enactment.''.

SEC. 304. REPORT ON CAPITAL PROJECTS. FOR FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEMS AND 
                    EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEMS.

  Section 5309(m) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
          (1) by indenting and dropping paragraph (1) down 1 line;
          (2) by moving all the paragraphs and subparagraphs of such 
        section 2 ems to the right;
          (3) by inserting ``Percentages.--'' after ``(1)'' the first 
        place it appears;
          (4) by inserting ``Nonurbanized area allocation.--'' after 
        ``(2)'' the first place it appears;
          (5) by inserting ``Reports.--'' after ``(3)'' the first place 
        it appears;
          (6) in paragraph (3) by striking ``Public Works and 
        Transportation'' and inserting ``Transportation and 
        Infrastructure'';
          (7) in paragraph (3) by striking ``a proposal on the 
        allocation'' and inserting ``a report on the proposed 
        allocation'';
          (8) in paragraph (3) by adding at the end the following:
        ``Such report shall include for each such capital project the 
        following:
                  ``(A) An analysis of the potential funding 
                requirements of the project under paragraph (1)(B) in 
                the succeeding 5 fiscal years.
                  ``(B) A description of the planning and study process 
                undertaken to select the locally preferred alternative 
                for the project.
                  ``(C) A description of efforts undertaken to seek 
                alternative funding sources for the project.''; and
          (9) by inserting ``Multiple allocations.--'' after ``(4)'' 
        the first place it appears.

SEC. 305. REPEAL AND MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PROJECTS.

  (a) Long Beach Metro Link Fixed Rail Project.--Section 3035(o) of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
2131) is repealed.
  (b) Honolulu Rapid Transit Project.--Section 3035(ww) of such Act 
(105 Stat. 2136) is amended by striking ``$618,000,000'' and inserting 
``$541,100,000''.

SEC. 306. MISCELLANEOUS TRANSIT PROJECTS.

  (a) New Jersey Urban Core Project.--Section 3031(d) of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2122-2123) is 
amended--
          (1) by inserting after ``Hudson River Waterfront 
        Transportation System'' the following: ``(including corridor 
        connections to and within the city of Bayonne)''; and
          (2) by inserting after ``Concourse,'' the following: ``the 
        West Shore Line,''.
  (b) North Bay Ferry Service.--Section 3035(c) of such Act (105 Stat. 
2129) is amended by striking ``$8,000,000'' and all that follows 
through ``1993'' and inserting ``$17,000,000''.
  (c) Staten Island-Midtown Manhattan Ferry Service.--Section 3035(d) 
of such Act is amended by striking ``$1,000,000'' and all that follows 
through ``1993'' and inserting ``$12,000,000''.
  (d) Central Area Circulator Project.--Section 3035(e) of such Act is 
amended by striking the last sentence which begins ``Such amount''.
  (e) Salt Lake City Light Rail Project.--Section 3035(f) of such Act 
is amended by inserting after ``including'' the following: ``related 
high-occupancy vehicle lane, intermodal corridor design,''.
  (f) Los Angeles-San Diego Rail Corridor Improvement Project.--Section 
3035(g) of such Act is amended by striking ``not less than'' the 1st 
place it appears and all that follows through ``1994'' and inserting 
``$20,000,000''.
  (g) San Jose-Gilroy-Hollister Commuter Rail Project.--Section 3035(h) 
of such Act is amended--
          (1) by striking ``July 1, 1994'' and inserting ``September 
        30, 1996''; and
          (2) by striking ``August 1, 1994,'' and inserting ``October 
        31, 1996,''.
  (h) Dallas Light Rail Project.--
          (1) Multiyear grant agreement.--Section 3035(i) of such Act 
        is amended--
                  (A) by striking ``6.4 miles'' and inserting ``9.6 
                miles'';
                  (B) by striking ``10 stations'' and inserting ``not 
                to exceed 14 stations'';
                  (C) by striking ``such light rail line'' and 
                inserting ``the program of interrelated projects 
                identified in section 5328(c)(1)(G) of title 49, United 
                States Code,''; and
                  (D) by striking ``of such elements'' and inserting 
                ``element of such program of interrelated projects''
          (2) Program of interrelated projects.--Section 5328(c)(1)(G) 
        of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``Camp 
        Wisdom'' and inserting ``Interstate Route 20, L.B.J. Freeway''.
  (i) Kansas City Light Rail Line.--Section 3035(k) of such Act is 
amended by striking ``$1,500,000 in fiscal year 1992, and $4,400,000 in 
fiscal year 1993'' and inserting ``$5,900,000''.
  (j) Downtown Orlando Circulator Project.--Section 3035(l) of such Act 
is amended--
          (1) by striking the subsection heading and inserting 
        ``Downtown Orlando Circulator Project'';
          (2) by striking ``No later than April 30, 1992, the'' and 
        inserting ``The'';
          (3) by striking ``for'' the second place it appears and all 
        that follows through the period at the end and inserting ``and 
        the completion of final design, construction, land and 
        equipment acquisition, and related activities for the Downtown 
        Orlando Circulator project.''.
  (k) Detroit Light Rail Project.--Section 3035(m) of such Act is 
amended by striking ``not less than'' the first place it appears and 
all that follows through ``1993,'' and inserting ``$20,000,000''.
  (l) Lakewood-Freehold-Matawan or Jamesburg Rail Project.--Section 
3035(p) of such Act is amended by striking ``$1,800,000'' and all that 
follows through ``1994'' and inserting ``$7,800,000''.
  (m) Charlotte Light Rail Study.--Section 3035(r) of such Act is 
amended by striking ``$125,000'' and all that follows through ``1993'' 
and inserting ``$500,000''.
  (n) San Diego Mid Coast Fixed Guideway Project.--Section 3035(u) of 
such Act is amended--
          (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Mid Coast Light 
        Rail Project'' and inserting ``Metropolitan Transit Improvement 
        Program'';
          (2) by striking ``No later than April 30, 1992, the'' and 
        inserting ``The'';
          (3) by striking ``, $2,000,000'' and all that follows through 
        the period and inserting ``$27,000,000 for the integrated 
        project financing of the San Diego Mid Coast and Mission Valley 
        East Corridor fixed guideway projects.''.
  (o) Eureka Springs, Arkansas.--Section 3035(z) of such Act is amended 
by striking the text and inserting the following: ``From funds made 
available under section 5309(m)(1)(C) of title 49, United States Code, 
the Secretary shall make available $63,600 to Eureka Springs Transit 
for the purchase of an alternative fueled vehicle which is accessible 
to and usable by individuals with disabilities.''.
  (p) Baltimore-Washington Transportation Improvements Program.--
Section 3035(nn) of such Act is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``as follows:'' and all that 
        follows through ``1994.'' and inserting ``and shall be 
        $60,000,000.'';
          (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``as follows:'' and all that 
        follows through the period at the end of subparagraph (C) and 
        inserting ``and shall total $160,000,000.''; and
          (3) in paragraph (3) by striking ``for fiscal year 1993''.
  (q) Dulles Corridor Rail Project.--Section 3035(aaa) of such Act is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``No later than April 30, 1992, the'' and 
        inserting ``The''; and
          (2) by striking ``the completion'' and all that follows 
        through ``engineering for''.
  (r) Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Project.--Section 3035(bbb) 
of such Act is amended to read as follows:
  ``(bbb) Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Project.--From funds 
made available under section 5309(m)(1)(B) of title 49, United States 
Code, the Secretary shall make available $300,000,000 for the Central 
Puget Sound Regional Transit Project.''.
  (s) Canal Street Corridor Light Rail.--Section 3035(fff) of such Act 
is amended--
          (1) by striking ``No later than April 30, 1992, the'' and 
        inserting ``The''; and
          (2) by striking ``negotiate'' and all that follows through 
        ``includes'' and inserting ``make available''.
  (t) Additional Transit Projects.--
          (1) Canton-akron-cleveland commuter rail.--From funds made 
        available under section 5309(m)(1)(B) of title 49, United 
        States Code, the Secretary shall make available $6,500,000 for 
        the Canton-Akron-Cleveland Commuter Rail project.
          (2) Cincinnati northeast/northern kentucky rail.--From funds 
        made available under such section, the Secretary shall make 
        available $2,000,000 for the Cincinnati Northeast/Northern 
        Kentucky Rail project.
          (3) DART north central light rail extension.--From funds made 
        available under such section, the Secretary shall make 
        available $2,500,000 for the DART North Central Light Rail 
        Extension project.
          (4) Dallas-fort worth railtran.--From funds made available 
        under such section, the Secretary shall make available 
        $5,000,000 for the Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project.
          (5) Florida tri-county commuter rail.--From funds made 
        available under such section, the Secretary shall make 
        available $10,000,000 for the Florida Tri-County Commuter Rail 
        project.
          (6) Miami-north 27th avenue.--From funds made available under 
        such section, the Secretary shall make available $2,000,000 for 
        the Miami-North 27th Avenue project.
          (7) Memphis, tennessee, regional rail plan.--From funds made 
        available under such section, the Secretary shall make 
        available $2,500,000 for the Memphis, Tennessee, Regional Rail 
        Plan project.
          (8) New orleans canal street corridor.--From funds made 
        available under such section, the Secretary shall make 
        available $10,000,000 for the New Orleans Canal Street Corridor 
        project.
          (9) Orange county transitway.--From funds made available 
        under such section, the Secretary shall make available 
        $5,000,000 for the Orange County Transitway project.
          (10) Whitehall ferry terminal, new york, new york.--From 
        funds made available under such section, the Secretary shall 
        make available $5,000,000 for the Whitehall Ferry Terminal 
        project.
          (11) Wisconsin central commuter.--From funds made available 
        under such section, the Secretary shall make available 
        $14,400,000 for the Wisconsin Central Commuter project.
          (12) San juan, puerto rico, tren urbano.--From funds made 
        available under such section, the Secretary shall make 
        available $15,000,000 for the San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren 
        Urbano project.
          (13) Tampa to lakeland commuter rail.--From funds made 
        available under such section, the Secretary shall make 
        available $1,000,000 for the Tampa to Lakeland Commuter Rail 
        project.

SEC. 307. METROPOLITAN PLANNING FOR TRANSIT PROJECTS.

  Section 5303(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
          ``(16) recreational travel and tourism.''.

SEC. 308. CONTRACTING FOR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES.

  Section 5325 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
  ``(e) Special Rules for Engineering and Design Contracts.--
          ``(1) Performance and audits.--Any contract or subcontract 
        awarded in accordance with subsection (d), whether funded in 
        whole or in part with Federal transit funds, shall be performed 
        and audited in compliance with cost principles contained in the 
        Federal acquisition regulations of part 31 of title 48 of the 
        Code of Federal Regulations.
          ``(2) Indirect cost rates.--Instead of performing its own 
        audits, a recipient of funds under a contract or subcontract 
        awarded in accordance with subsection (d) shall accept indirect 
        cost rates established in accordance with the Federal 
        acquisition regulations for 1-year applicable accounting 
        periods by a cognizant Federal or State government agency, if 
        such rates are not currently under dispute. Once a firm's 
        indirect cost rates are accepted, the recipient of such funds 
        shall apply such rates for the purposes of contract estimation, 
        negotiation, administration, reporting, and contract payment 
        and shall not be limited by administrative or de facto ceilings 
        of any kind. A recipient of such funds requesting or using the 
        cost and rate data described in this paragraph shall notify any 
        affected firm before such request or use. Such data shall be 
        confidential and shall not be accessible or provided, in whole 
        or in part, to another firm or to any government agency which 
        is not part of the group of agencies sharing cost data under 
        this paragraph, except by written permission of the audited 
        firm. If prohibited by law, such cost and rate data shall not 
        be disclosed under any circumstances.
          ``(3) State option.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall take effect 
        2 years after the date of the enactment of this subsection with 
        respect to all States; except that if a State, during such 2-
        year period, adopts by statute an alternative process intended 
        to promote engineering and design quality and ensure maximum 
        competition by professional companies of all sizes providing 
        engineering and design services, such paragraphs shall not 
        apply with respect to such State.''.

SEC. 309. FERRY BOATS AND TERMINAL FACILITIES.

  Section 129(c)(5) of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
          (1) by inserting before the period at the end of the first 
        sentence the following: ``or between a point in a State and a 
        point in the Dominion of Canada''; and
          (2) in the second sentence by inserting after ``Puerto Rico'' 
        the following: ``, between a point in a State and a point in 
        the Dominion of Canada,''.

SEC. 310. UTILIZATION OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR FOR SURVEYING AND MAPPING 
                    SERVICES.

  Section 306 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``In''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(b) Guidance.--The Secretary shall issue guidance to encourage 
States to utilize, to the maximum extent practicable, private sector 
sources for surveying and mapping services for highway projects under 
this title. In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall 
determine appropriate roles for State and private mapping and surveying 
activities, including--
          ``(1) preparation of standards and specifications;
          ``(2) research in surveying and mapping instrumentation and 
        procedures and technology transfer to the private sector;
          ``(3) providing technical guidance, coordination, and 
        administration of State surveying and mapping activities; and
          ``(4) establishing a schedule with quantifiable goals for 
        increasing the use by the States of private sector sources for 
        surveying and mapping activities.''.

SEC. 311. FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM.

  (a) Transit Security Systems.--Section 5307(d)(1)(J)(i) of title 49, 
United States Code, is amended by inserting before ``and any other'' 
the following: ``employing law enforcement or security personnel in 
areas within or adjacent to such systems,''.
  (b) Ferryboat Operations.--For purposes of calculating apportionments 
under section 5336 of title 49, United States Code, for fiscal years 
beginning after September 30, 1995, 50 percent of the ferryboat revenue 
vehicle miles and 50 percent of the ferryboat route miles attributable 
to service provided to the city of Avalon, California, for which the 
operator receives public assistance shall be included in the 
calculation of ``fixed guideway vehicle revenue miles'' and ``fixed 
guideway route miles'' attributable to the Los Angeles urbanized area 
under sections 5336(b)(2)(A) and 5335 of such title.

SEC. 312. ACCESSIBILITY OF OVER-THE-ROAD BUSES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH 
                    DISABILITIES.

  Section 306(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 
1990 (42 U.S.C. 12186(a)(2)(B)(iii)) is amended--
          (1) in subclause (I) by striking ``7 years after the date of 
        the enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``3 years after the 
        date of issuance of final regulations under subparagraph 
        (B)(ii)''; and
          (2) in subclause (II) by striking ``6 years after such date 
        of enactment'' and inserting ``2 years after the date of 
        issuance of such final regulations''.

SEC. 313. ALASKA RAILROAD.

  Section 5337(a)(3)(B) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following: ``The Alaska Railroad is eligible for 
assistance under this subparagraph with respect to improvements to its 
passenger operations.''.

SEC. 314. ALCOHOL AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES TESTING.

  (a) Mass Transit Testing.--Section 5331(b)(1)(A) of title 49, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
  ``(b) Testing Program for Mass Transportation Employees.--(1)(A) In 
the interest of mass transportation safety, the Secretary shall 
prescribe regulations that establish a program requiring mass 
transportation operations that receive financial assistance under 
section 5307, 5309, or 5311 of this title or section 103(e)(4) of title 
23 to conduct preemployment, reasonable suspicion, random, and post-
accident testing of mass transportation employees responsible for 
safety-sensitive functions (as decided by the Secretary) for the use of 
a controlled substance in violation of law or a United States 
Government regulation, and to conduct reasonable suspicion, random, and 
post-accident testing of such employees for the use of alcohol in 
violation of law or a United States Government regulation. The 
regulations shall permit such operations to conduct preemployment 
testing of such employees for the use of alcohol.''.
  (b) Railroad Testing.--Section 20140(b)(1)(A) of title 49, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
          ``(A) a railroad carrier to conduct preemployment, reasonable 
        suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of all railroad 
        employees responsible for safety-sensitive functions (as 
        decided by the Secretary) for the use of a controlled substance 
        in violation of law or a United States Government regulation, 
        and to conduct reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident 
        testing of such employees for the use of alcohol in violation 
        of law or a United States Government regulation; the 
        regulations shall permit such railroad carriers to conduct 
        preemployment testing of such employees for the use of alcohol; 
        and''.
  (c) Motor Carrier Testing.--Section 31306(b)(1)(A) of such title is 
amended to read as follows:
  ``(b) Testing Program for Operators of Commercial Motor Vehicles.--
(1)(A) In the interest of commercial motor vehicle safety, the 
Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations that establish 
a program requiring motor carriers to conduct preemployment, reasonable 
suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of operators of commercial 
motor vehicles for the use of controlled substance in violation of law 
or a United States Government regulation and to conduct reasonable 
suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of such operators for the 
use of alcohol in violation of law or a United States Government 
regulation. The regulations shall permit such motor carriers to conduct 
preemployment testing of such employees for the use of alcohol.''.
  (d) Aviation Testing.--
          (1) Program for employees of air carriers and foreign air 
        carriers.--Section 45102(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, 
        is amended to read as follows:
  ``(a) Program for Employees of Air Carriers and Foreign Air 
Carriers.--(1) In the interest of aviation safety, the Administrator of 
the Federal Aviation Administration shall prescribe regulations that 
establish a program requiring air carriers and foreign air carriers to 
conduct preemployment, reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident 
testing of airmen, crewmembers, airport security screening contract 
personnel, and other air carrier employees responsible for safety-
sensitive functions (as decided by the Administrator) for the use of a 
controlled substance in violation of law or a United States Government 
regulation; and to conduct reasonable suspicion, random, and post-
accident testing of airmen, crewmembers, airport security screening 
contract personnel, and other air carrier employees responsible for 
safety-sensitive functions (as decided by the Administrator) for the 
use of alcohol in violation of law or a United States Government 
regulation. The regulations shall permit air carriers and foreign air 
carriers to conduct preemployment testing of airmen, crewmembers, 
airport security screening contract personnel, and other air carrier 
employees responsible for safety-sensitive functions (as decided by the 
Administrator) for the use of alcohol.''.
          (2) Program for employees of the federal aviation 
        administration.--Section 45102(b)(1) of title 49, United States 
        Code, is amended to read as follows:
  ``(b) Program for Employees of the Federal Aviation Administration.--
(1) The Administrator shall establish a program of preemployment, 
reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing for the use of 
a controlled substance in violation of law or a United States 
Government regulation for employees of the Administration whose duties 
include responsibility for safety-sensitive functions and shall 
establish a program of reasonable suspicion, random and post-accident 
testing for the use of alcohol in violation of law or a United States 
Government regulation for such employees. The Administrator may 
establish a program of preemployment testing for the use of alcohol for 
such employees.''.

SEC. 315. ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING COUNTERMEASURES.

  (a) Technical Amendment.--Section 410(d)(1)(E) of title 23, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ``the date of enactment of this 
section'' and inserting ``December 18, 1991''.
  (b) Basic Grant Eligibility.--Section 410(d) of such title is further 
amended--
          (1) in paragraph (3)--
                  (A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)''; and
                  (B) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(B) A State shall be treated as having met the requirement 
        of this paragraph if--
                  ``(i) the State provides to the Secretary a written 
                certification that the highest court of the State has 
                issued a decision indicating that implementation of 
                subparagraph (A) would constitute a violation of the 
                constitution of the State; and
                  ``(ii) the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of 
                the Secretary--
                          ``(I) that the alcohol fatal crash 
                        involvement rate in the State has decreased in 
                        each of the 3 most recent calendar years for 
                        which statistics for determining such rate are 
                        available; and
                          ``(II) that the alcohol fatal crash 
                        involvement rate in the State has been lower 
                        than the average such rate for all States in 
                        each of such calendar years.''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(7) Any individual under age 21 with a blood alcohol 
        concentration of 0.02 percent or greater when driving a motor 
        vehicle shall be deemed to be driving while intoxicated.''.
  (c) Supplemental Grants.--Section 410(f) of such title is amended by 
striking paragraph (1) and redesignating paragraphs (2) through (7) as 
paragraphs (1) through (6), respectively.

SEC. 316. SAFETY RESEARCH INITIATIVES.

  (a) Older Drivers and Other Special Driver Groups.--
          (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of 
        technologies and practices to improve the driving performance 
        of older drivers and other special driver groups.
          (2) Demonstration activities.--In conducting the study under 
        paragraph (1), the Secretary shall undertake demonstration 
        activities which incorporate and build upon gerontology 
        research related to the study of the normal aging process. The 
        Secretary shall initially implement such activities in those 
        States which have the highest population of aging citizens for 
        whom driving a motor vehicle is their primary mobility mode.
          (3) Cooperative agreement.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
        study under paragraph (1) by entering into a cooperative 
        agreement with an institution that has demonstrated 
        competencies in gerontological research, population 
        demographics, human factors related to transportation, and 
        advanced technology applied to transportation.
  (b) Work Zone Safety.--In carrying out the work zone safety program 
under section 1051 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991, the Secretary shall utilize a variety of methods to 
increase safety at highway construction sites, including each of the 
following:
          (1) Conferences to explore new techniques and stimulate 
        dialogue for improving work zone safety.
          (2) Creation of a national clearinghouse to assemble and 
        disseminate, by electronic and other means, information 
        relating to the improvement of work zone safety.
          (3) A national promotional campaign in cooperation with the 
        States to provide timely, site-specific information to 
        motorists when construction workers are actually present.
  (c) Radio and Microwave Technology for Motor Vehicle Safety Warning 
System.--
          (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to develop 
        and evaluate radio and microwave technology for a motor vehicle 
        safety warning system in furtherance of safety in all types of 
        motor vehicles.
          (2) Equipment.--Equipment developed under the study to be 
        conducted under subsection (a) shall be directed toward, but 
        not limited to, advance warning to operators of all types of 
        motor vehicles of--
                  (A) temporary obstructions in a highway;
                  (B) poor visibility and highway surface conditions 
                caused by adverse weather; and
                  (C) movement of emergency vehicles.
          (3) Safety applications.--In conducting the study under 
        paragraph (1), the Secretary shall determine whether the 
        technology described in this subsection has other appropriate 
        safety applications.

SEC. 317. PUBLIC TRANSIT VEHICLES EXEMPTION.

  Section 1023(h)(1) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 127 note) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``2-year'' the first place it appears and all 
        that follows through ``Act,'' and inserting ``period beginning 
        on October 6, 1992, and ending on the date on which Federal-aid 
        highway and transit programs are reauthorized after the date of 
        the enactment of the National Highway System Designation Act of 
        1995,''; and
          (2) by striking the second sentence.

SEC. 318. CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

  (a) Areas Eligible for Funds.--
          (1) In general.--The first sentence of section 149(b) of 
        title 23, United States Code, is amended--
                  (A) by inserting ``if the project or program is for 
                an area in the State that was designated as a 
                nonattainment area under section 107(d) of the Clean 
                Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)) during any part of fiscal 
                year 1994 and'' after ``program'' the 2nd place it 
                appears; and
                  (B) in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ``contribute'' 
                and all that follows through ``; or'' and inserting the 
                following: ``contribute to--
                  ``(i) the attainment of a national ambient air 
                quality standard; or
                  ``(ii) the maintenance of a national ambient air 
                quality standard in an area that was designated as a 
                nonattainment area but that was later redesignated by 
                the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
                Agency as an attainment area under section 107(d) of 
                the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)); or''.
          (2) Apportionment.--Section 104(b)(2) of title 23, United 
        States Code, is amended--
                  (A) in the second sentence, by striking ``is a 
                nonattainment area (as defined in the Clean Air Act) 
                for ozone'' and inserting ``was a nonattainment area 
                (as defined in section 171(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 
                U.S.C. 7501(2))) for ozone during any part of fiscal 
                year 1994''; and
                  (B) in the third sentence--
                          (i) by striking ``is also'' and inserting 
                        ``was also''; and
                          (ii) by inserting ``during any part of fiscal 
                        year 1994'' after ``monoxide''.
  (b) Effect of Limitation on Apportionment.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997, any 
limitation under an amendment made by this section on an apportionment 
of funds otherwise authorized under section 1003(a)(4) of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
1919) shall not affect any hold harmless apportionment adjustment under 
section 1015(a) of such Act (105 Stat. 1943).

SEC. 319. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT.

  (a) Life-Cycle Cost Analysis.--Section 106 of title 23, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(e) Life-Cycle Cost Analysis.--
          ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a program 
        to require States to conduct an analysis of the life-cycle 
        costs of all projects on the National Highway System with an 
        estimated total cost of $25,000,000 or more.
          ``(2) Analysis of life-cycle costs defined.--In this 
        subsection, the term `analysis of life-cycle costs' means a 
        process for evaluating the total economic worth of one or more 
        projects by analyzing both initial costs as well as discounted 
        future costs, such as maintenance, reconstruction, 
        rehabilitation, restoring, and resurfacing costs, over the life 
        of the project or projects.''.
  (b) Value Engineering.--Such section is further amended by adding at 
the end the following:
  ``(f) Value Engineering for NHS.--
          ``(1) Requirement.--The Secretary shall establish a program 
        to require States to carry out a value engineering analysis for 
        all projects on the National Highway System with an estimated 
        total cost of $25,000,000 or more.
          ``(2) Value engineering defined.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the term `value engineering analysis' means a 
        systematic process of review and analysis of a project or 
        activity during its design phase by a multidisciplined team of 
        persons not originally involved in the project or activity in 
        order to provide suggestions for reducing the total cost of the 
        project or activity and providing a project or activity of 
        equal or better quality. Such suggestions may include a 
        combination or elimination of inefficient or expensive parts of 
        the original proposed design for the project or activity and 
        total redesign of the proposed project or activity using 
        different technologies, materials, or methods so as to 
        accomplish the original purpose of the project or activity.''.

SEC. 320. APPLICABILITY OF TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY REQUIREMENTS.

  (a) Highway Construction.--Section 109(j) of title 23, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``plan for the implementation of any 
ambient air quality standard for any air quality control region 
designated pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as amended.'' and inserting 
the following: ``plan for--
          ``(1) the implementation of a national ambient air quality 
        standard for which an area is designated as a nonattainment 
        area under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
        7407(d)); or
          ``(2) the maintenance of a national ambient air quality 
        standard in an area that was designated as a nonattainment area 
        but that was later redesignated by the Administrator as an 
        attainment area for the standard and that is required to 
        develop a maintenance plan under section 175A of the Clean Air 
        Act (42 U.S.C. 7505a).''.
  (b) Clean Air Act Requirements.--Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act 
(42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply only with 
        respect to--
                  ``(A) a nonattainment area and each specific 
                pollutant for which the area is designated as a 
                nonattainment area; and
                  ``(B) an area that was designated as a nonattainment 
                area but that was later redesignated by the 
                Administrator as an attainment area and that is 
                required to develop a maintenance plan under section 
                175A with respect to the specific pollutant for which 
                the area was designated nonattainment.''.

SEC. 321. QUALITY THROUGH COMPETITION.

  (a) Contracting for Engineering and Design Services.--Section 
112(b)(2) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following new subparagraphs:
                  ``(C) Performance and audits.--Any contract or 
                subcontract awarded in accordance with subparagraph 
                (A), whether funded in whole or in part with Federal-
                aid highway funds, shall be performed and audited in 
                compliance with cost principles contained in the 
                Federal acquisition regulations of part 31 of title 48 
                of the Code of Federal Regulations.
                  ``(D) Indirect cost rates.--Instead of performing its 
                own audits, a recipient of funds under a contract or 
                subcontract awarded in accordance with subparagraph (A) 
                shall accept indirect cost rates established in 
                accordance with the Federal acquisition regulations for 
                1-year applicable accounting periods by a cognizant 
                Federal or State government agency, if such rates are 
                not currently under dispute. Once a firm's indirect 
                cost rates are accepted, the recipient of such funds 
                shall apply such rates for the purposes of contract 
                estimation, negotiation, administration, reporting, and 
                contract payment and shall not be limited by 
                administrative or de facto ceilings of any kind. A 
                recipient of such funds requesting or using the cost 
                and rate data described in this subparagraph shall 
                notify any affected firm before such request or use. 
                Such data shall be confidential and shall not be 
                accessible or provided, in whole or in part, to another 
                firm or to any government agency which is not part of 
                the group of agencies sharing cost data under this 
                subparagraph, except by written permission of the 
                audited firm. If prohibited by law, such cost and rate 
                data shall not be disclosed under any circumstances.
                  ``(E) State option.--Subparagraphs (C) and (D) shall 
                take effect 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
                this subparagraph with respect to all States; except 
                that if a State, during such 2-year period, adopts by 
                statute an alternative process intended to promote 
                engineering and design quality and ensure maximum 
                competition by professional companies of all sizes 
                providing engineering and design services, such 
                subparagraphs shall not apply with respect to such 
                State.''.
  (b) Repeal of Pilot Program.--Section 1092 of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 112 note; 105 Stat. 
2024) is repealed.

SEC. 322. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN VEHICLE WEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN 
                    WISCONSIN.

  Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
  ``(f) Operation of Certain Specialized Hauling Vehicles on Certain 
Wisconsin Highways.--If the 104-mile portion of Wisconsin State Route 
78 and United States Route 51 between Interstate Route 94 near Portage, 
Wisconsin, and Wisconsin State Route 29 south of Wausau, Wisconsin, is 
designated as part of the Interstate System under section 139(a), the 
single axle weight, tandem axle weight, gross vehicle weight, and 
bridge formula limits set forth in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
the 104-mile portion with respect to the operation of any vehicle that 
could legally operate on the 104-mile portion before the date of 
enactment of this subsection.''.

SEC. 323. TREATMENT OF CENTENNIAL BRIDGE, ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS, 
                    AGREEMENT.

  For purposes of section 129(a)(6) of title 23, United States Code, 
the agreement concerning the Centennial Bridge, Rock Island, Illinois, 
entered into under the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the city of 
Rock Island, Illinois, or its assigns, to construct, maintain, and 
operate a toll bridge across the Mississippi River at or near Rock 
Island, Illinois, and to a place at or near the city of Davenport, 
Iowa'', approved March 18, 1938 (52 Stat. 110, chapter 48), shall be 
treated as if the agreement had been entered into under section 129 of 
title 23, United States Code, as in effect on December 17, 1991, and 
may be modified in accordance with section 129(a)(6) of the title.

SEC. 324. METRIC REQUIREMENTS AND SIGNS.

  (a) Placement of Signs.--Before September 30, 1997, the Secretary may 
not require the States to expend any Federal or State funds to 
construct, erect, or otherwise place any sign relating to any speed 
limit, distance, or other measurement on any highway for the purpose of 
having such sign establish such speed limit, distance, or other 
measurement using the metric system.
  (b) Modification of Signs.--Before September 30, 1997, the Secretary 
may not require the States to expend any Federal or State funds to 
modify any sign relating to any speed limit, any distance, or other 
measurement on any highway for the purpose of having such sign 
establish such speed limit, distance, or measurement using the metric 
system.
  (c) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
          (1) Highway.--The term ``highway'' has the meaning such term 
        has under section 101 of title 23, United States Code.
          (2) Metric system.--The term ``metric system'' has the 
        meaning the term ``metric system of measurement'' has under 
        section 4 of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (15 U.S.C. 
        205c).

SEC. 325. ISTEA TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION.

  Section 131(s) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
striking the period at the end of the first sentence and inserting the 
following: ``; except that nothing in this subsection or section 1047 
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 shall 
restrict, or otherwise be applied by the Secretary to affect, the 
authority of a State under subsection (d) of this section with respect 
to commercial or industrial areas or the authority of a State under 
subsection (k) of this section to establish standards imposing stricter 
limitations than those established in this subsection.''.

SEC. 326. METROPOLITAN PLANNING FOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS.

  Section 134(f) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
          ``(16) Recreational travel and tourism.''.

SEC. 327. NON-FEDERAL SHARE FOR CERTAIN TOLL BRIDGE PROJECTS.

  Section 144(l) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following: ``Any non-Federal funds expended for the 
seismic retrofit of the bridge may be credited toward the non-Federal 
share required as a condition of receipt of any Federal funds for 
seismic retrofit of the bridge made available after the date of the 
expenditure.''.

SEC. 328. DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION AS EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS AND 
                    SURVEYS.

  Section 409 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
``or collected'' after ``compiled''.

SEC. 329. NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS.

  (a) State Eligibility.--Section 1302(c) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (33 U.S.C. 1261(c)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``Act'' each place it appears and inserting 
        ``part'';
          (2) in paragraph (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and 
        redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as subparagraphs (B) 
        and (C), respectively; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(3) Sixth year provision.--On and after the date that is 5 
        years after the date of the enactment of this part, a State 
        shall be eligible to receive moneys under this part in a fiscal 
        year only if the State agrees to expend from non-Federal 
        sources for carrying out projects under this part an amount 
        equal to 20 percent of the amount received by the State under 
        this part in such fiscal year.''.
  (b) Administrative Costs.--Section 1302(d)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
1261(d)(1)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
          (2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); 
        and
          (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
                  ``(D) contracting for services with other land 
                management agencies; and''.
  (c) Environmental Mitigation.--
          (1) In general.--Section 1302(e) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
        1261(e)) is amended--
                  (A) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), (7), and 
                (8) as paragraphs (6), (7), (8), and (9), respectively; 
                and
                  (B) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
          ``(5) Environmental mitigation.--
                  ``(A) Requirement.--To the extent practicable and 
                consistent with other requirements of this section, in 
                complying with paragraph (4), a State shall give 
                priority to project proposals which provide for the 
                redesign, reconstruction, nonroutine maintenance, or 
                relocation of trails in order to mitigate and minimize 
                the impact to the natural environment.
                  ``(B) Compliance.--The State shall receive guidance 
                for determining compliance with subparagraph (A) from 
                the recreational trail advisory board satisfying the 
                requirements of subsection (c)(2)(A).''.
          (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1302(e)(4) of such Act (33 
        U.S.C. 1261(e)(4)) is amended by striking ``paragraphs (6) and 
        (8)(B)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (7) and (9)(B)''.
  (d) Exclusions.--Section 1302(e)(7) of such Act, as redesignated by 
subsection (c), is amended--
          (1) by striking ``(7) Small state exclusion.--'' and 
        inserting the following:
          ``(7) Exclusions.--
                  ``(A) Small state.--'';
          (2) by moving the text of subparagraph (A), as designated by 
        paragraph (1), 2 ems to the right; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(B) Best interest of a state.--Any State which 
                determines based on trail needs identified in its State 
                Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan that it is in the 
                best interest of the State to be exempt from the 
                requirements of paragraph (4) may apply to the 
                Secretary for such an exemption. Before approving or 
                disapproving an application for such an exemption, the 
                Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
                of receipt of the application and provide an 
                opportunity for public comment on the application.''.
  (e) Return of Moneys Not Expended.--Section 1302(e)(9) of such Act, 
as redesignated by subsection (c), is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``the State'' before ``may be exempted''; 
        and
          (2) by striking ``and expended or committed'' and all that 
        follows before the period.
  (f) Advisory Committee.--Section 1303(b) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 
1262(b)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``11 members'' and inserting ``12 members'';
          (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as 
        paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively; and
          (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
          ``(2) 1 member appointed by the Secretary representing 
        individuals with disabilities;''.

SEC. 330. IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS.

  (a) In General.--Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032) is amended--
          (1) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
          ``(5)(A) I-73/74 North-South Corridor from Charleston, South 
        Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to Portsmouth, 
        Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, to termini at Detroit, Michigan and 
        Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The Sault Ste. Marie terminus shall 
        be reached via a corridor connecting Adrian, Jackson, Lansing, 
        Mount Pleasant, and Grayling, Michigan.
          ``(B)(i) In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Corridor shall 
        generally follow--
                  ``(I) United States Route 220 from the Virginia-North 
                Carolina border to I-581 south of Roanoke;
                  ``(II) I-581 to I-81 in the vicinity of Roanoke;
                  ``(III) I-81 to the proposed highway to demonstrate 
                intelligent transportation systems authorized by item 
                29 of the table in section 1107(b) in the vicinity of 
                Christiansburg to United States Route 460 in the 
                vicinity of Blacksburg; and
                  ``(IV) United States Route 460 to the West Virginia 
                State line.
          ``(ii) In the States of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio, 
        the Corridor shall generally follow--
                  ``(I) United States Route 460 from the West Virginia 
                State line to United States Route 52 at Bluefield, West 
                Virginia; and
                  ``(II) United States Route 52 to United States Route 
                23 at Portsmouth, Ohio.
          ``(iii) In the States of North Carolina and South Carolina, 
        the Corridor shall generally follow--
                  ``(I) in the case of I-73--
                          ``(aa) United States Route 220 from the 
                        Virginia State line to State Route 68 in the 
                        vicinity of Greensboro;
                          ``(bb) State Route 68 to I-40;
                          ``(cc) I-40 to United States Route 220 in 
                        Greensboro;
                          ``(dd) United States Route 220 to United 
                        States Route 1 near Rockingham;
                          ``(ee) United States Route 1 to the South 
                        Carolina State line; and
                          ``(ff) South Carolina State line to 
                        Charleston, South Carolina; and
                  ``(II) in the case of I-74--
                          ``(aa) I-77 from Bluefield, West Virginia, to 
                        the junction of I-77 and the United States 
                        Route 52 connector in Surry County, North 
                        Carolina;
                          ``(bb) the I-77/United States Route 52 
                        connector to United States Route 52 south of 
                        Mount Airy, North Carolina;
                          ``(cc) United States Route 52 to United 
                        States Route 311 in Winston-Salem, North 
                        Carolina;
                          ``(dd) United States Route 311 to United 
                        States Route 220 in the vicinity of Randleman, 
                        North Carolina.
                          ``(ee) United States Route 220 to United 
                        States Route 74 near Rockingham;
                          ``(ff) United States Route 74 to United 
                        States Route 76 near Whiteville;
                          ``(gg) United States Route 74/76 to the South 
                        Carolina State line in Brunswick County; and
                          ``(hh) South Carolina State line to 
                        Charleston, South Carolina.'';
          (2) in paragraph (18)--
                  (A) by striking ``and'';
                  (B) by inserting ``Arkansas,'' after ``Tennessee,''; 
                and
                  (C) by inserting before the period at the end the 
                following: ``, and to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at 
                the border between the United States and Mexico'';
          (3) by inserting before the period at the end of paragraph 
        (20) the following: ``, and to include the Corpus Christi 
        Northside Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing 
        intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 
        to United States Route 181''; and
          (4) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(22) The Alameda Transportation Corridor along Alameda 
        Street from the entrance to the ports of Los Angeles and Long 
        Beach to Interstate 10, Los Angeles, California.
          ``(23) The Interstate Route 35 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, 
        through Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to Wichita, Kansas, to Kansas 
        City, Kansas/Missouri, to Des Moines, Iowa, to Minneapolis, 
        Minnesota, to Duluth, Minnesota.
          ``(24) The Dalton Highway from Deadhorse, Alaska to 
        Fairbanks, Alaska.
          ``(25) State Route 168 (South Battlefield Boulevard), 
        Virginia, from the Great Bridge Bypass to the North Carolina 
        State line.
          ``(26) The CANNAMEX CORRIDOR from Nogales, Arizona, through 
        Las Vegas, Nevada, to Salt Lake City, Utah, to Idaho Falls, 
        Idaho, to Great Falls, Montana, to the Canadian Border as 
        follows:
                  ``(A) In the State of Arizona, the CANAMEX CORRIDOR 
                shall generally follow--
                          ``(i) I-19 from Nogales to Tucson;
                          ``(ii) I-10 from Tucson to Phoenix; and
                          ``(iii) United States Route 93 from Phoenix 
                        to the Nevada Border.
                  ``(B) In the State of Nevada, the CANAMEX CORRIDOR 
                shall follow--
                          ``(i) United States Route 93 from the Arizona 
                        Border to Las Vegas; and
                          ``(ii) I-15 from Las Vegas to the Utah 
                        Border.
                  ``(C) From the Utah Border to the Canadian Border, 
                the CANAMEX CORRIDOR shall follow I-15.''.
  (b) Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate System.--
Section 1105(e) of such Act (105 Stat. 2033) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
          ``(5) Inclusion of certain route segments on interstate 
        system.--Where not a part of the Interstate System, the routes 
        referred to in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subsection 
        (c)(5)(B) (other than the portion located in the State of West 
        Virginia), in subsection (c)(9), and in subsections (c)(18) and 
        (c)(20) are hereby designated future parts of the Interstate 
        System. Any segment of such routes shall become a part of the 
        Interstate System at such time as the Secretary determines that 
        the segment--
                  ``(A) meets the Interstate System design standards 
                approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 
                23, United States Code; and
                  ``(B) connects to an existing Interstate System 
                segment and functions as a safe and usable segment.''.

SEC. 331. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

  (a) Evacuation Routes for Louisiana Coastal Areas.--Section 
1105(e)(2) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991 (105 Stat. 2033) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
sentence: ``A feasibility study may be conducted under this subsection 
to identify routes that will expedite future emergency evacuations of 
coastal areas of Louisiana.''.
  (b) East-West Transamerica Corridor.--With amounts available to the 
Secretary under section 1105(h) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Secretary in cooperation 
with the States of Virginia and West Virginia shall conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of establishing a route for the East-West 
Transamerica Corridor (designated pursuant to section 1105(c)(3) of 
such Act) from Beckley, West Virginia, utilizing a corridor entering 
Virginia near the city of Covington then moving south from the 
Allegheny Highlands to serve Roanoke and continuing east to Lynchburg. 
From there such route would continue across Virginia to the Hampton 
Roads-Norfolk area.

SEC. 332. HIGH COST BRIDGE PROJECTS.

  The table contained in section 1103(b) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2027-2028) is 
amended--
          (1) in item number 5, relating to Gloucester Point, Virginia, 
        by inserting after ``York River'' the following: ``and for 
        repair, strengthening, and rehabilitation of the existing 
        bridge''; and
          (2) in item number 10, relating to Shakopee, Minnesota, by 
        inserting ``project, including the bypass of'' after 
        ``replacement''.

SEC. 333. CONGESTION RELIEF PROJECTS.

  The table contained in section 1104(b) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2029-2031) is 
amended--
          (1) in item number 1, relating to Long Beach, California, by 
        striking ``HOV Lanes on'' and inserting ``downtown Long Beach 
        access ramps into the southern terminus of'';
          (2) in item number 10, relating to San Diego, California, by 
        striking ``1 block of Cut and Cover Tunnel on Rt. 15'' and 
        inserting ``bridge decking on Route 15'';
          (3) in item number 23, relating to Tucson, Arizona, by 
        inserting ``, of which a total of $3,609,620 shall be available 
        for the project authorized by item number 74 of the table 
        contained in section 1106(b)'' after ``in Tuscon, Arizona''; 
        and
          (4) in item number 43, relating to West Virginia, by striking 
        ``Coal Fields'' and inserting ``Coalfields''.

SEC. 334. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

  Section 1105(c)(3) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032) is amended by inserting before 
the period at the end the following: ``commencing on the Atlantic Coast 
in the Hampton Roads-Norfolk area going westward across Virginia to a 
West Virginia corridor centered around Beckley to Welch as part of the 
Coalfields Expressway described in section 1069(v), then to Williamson 
sharing a common corridor with the I-73/74 Corridor (referred to in 
item 12 of the table contained in subsection (f)), then to a Kentucky 
Corridor centered on the cities of Pikeville, Jenkins, Hazard, London, 
Somerset, Columbia, Bowling Green, Hopkinsville, Benton, and Paducah, 
into Illinois, and into Missouri and exiting Western Missouri and 
entering the southeast corner of Kansas''.

SEC. 335. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR PROJECTS.

  The table contained in section 1105(f) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2033-2035) is 
amended--
          (1) in item 1, relating to Pennsylvania, by inserting after 
        ``For'' the following: ``the segment described in item 6 of 
        this table and up to $11,000,000 for'';
          (2) in item 2, relating to Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, 
        Tennessee, by inserting after ``Rt. 72'' the following: ``and 
        up to $1,500,000 from the State of Alabama's share of the 
        project for modification of the Keller Memorial Bridge in 
        Decatur, Alabama, to a pedestrian structure''; and
          (3) in item number 26, relating to Indiana, Kentucky, 
        Tennessee, by striking ``Newberry'' and inserting 
        ``Evansville''.

SEC. 336. RURAL ACCESS PROJECTS.

  The table contained in section 1106(a)(2) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2037-2042) is 
amended--
          (1) in item number 34, relating to Illinois, by striking 
        ``Resurfacing'' and all that follows through ``Omaha'' and 
        inserting ``Bel-Air Road improvement from south of Carmi to 
        State Route 141 in southeastern White County'';
          (2) in item number 52, relating to Bedford Springs, 
        Pennsylvania, by striking ``and Huntington'' and inserting 
        ``Franklin, and Huntingdon'';
          (3) in item number 61, relating to Lubbock, Texas, by 
        striking ``with Interstate 20'' and inserting ``with Interstate 
        10 through Interstate 20 and Interstate 27 north of Amarillo to 
        the Texas/Oklahoma border'';
          (4) in item number 71, relating to Chautauqua County, New 
        York, by inserting ``and other improvements'' after 
        ``expressway lanes'';
          (5) in item number 75, relating to Pennsylvania, by striking 
        ``Widen'' and all that follows through ``lanes'' and inserting 
        ``Road improvements on a 14-mile segment of U.S. Route 15 in 
        Lycoming County, Pennsylvania'';
          (6) in item number 93, relating to New Mexico, by striking 
        ``Raton-Clayton Rd., Clayton, New Mexico'' and inserting ``U.S. 
        Rt. 64/87 from Raton, New Mexico, through Clayton to the Texas-
        New Mexico State line''; and
          (7) in item number 111, relating to Parker County, Texas 
        (SH199)--
                  (A) by striking ``Parker County'' and inserting 
                ``Parker and Tarrant Counties''; and
                  (B) by striking ``to four-'' and inserting ``in 
                Tarrant County, to freeway standards and in Parker 
                County to a 4-''.

SEC. 337. URBAN ACCESS AND MOBILITY PROJECTS.

  The table contained in section 1106(b)(2) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2043-2047) is 
amended--
          (1) in item number (9), relating to New York, New York, by 
        striking ``Improvements'' and all that follows through ``NY'' 
        and inserting ``Projects in New York City, New York (other than 
        improvements to the Miller Highway)'';
          (2) in item number 13, relating to Joliet, Illinois, by 
        striking ``and construction and interchange at Houbolt Road and 
        I-80'';
          (3) in item number 36, relating to Compton, California, by 
        striking ``For a grade'' and all that follows through 
        ``Corridor'' and inserting ``For grade separations and other 
        improvements in the city of Compton, California''; and
          (4) in item number 52, relating to Chicago, Illinois, by 
        striking ``Right-of-way'' and all that follows through 
        ``Connector)'' and inserting ``Reconstruct the Michigan Avenue 
        viaduct''.

SEC. 338. INNOVATIVE PROJECTS.

  The table contained in section 1107(b) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2048-2059) is 
amended--
          (1) in item 19, relating to Water Street, Pennsylvania--
                  (A) by striking ``Water Street,''; and
                  (B) by inserting ``, or other projects in the 
                counties of Bedford, Blair, Centre, Franklin, and 
                Huntingdon as selected by the State of Pennsylvania'' 
                after ``Pennsylvania'' the second place it appears;
          (2) in item 20, relating to Holidaysburg, Pennsylvania--
                  (A) by striking ``Holidaysburg,'' the first place it 
                appears; and
                  (B) by inserting ``, or other projects in the 
                counties of Bedford, Blair, Centre, Franklin, and 
                Huntingdon as selected by the State of Pennsylvania'' 
                after ``Pennsylvania'' the second place it appears;
          (3) in item number 24, relating to Pennsylvania, by inserting 
        after ``line'' the following: ``and for the purchase, 
        rehabilitation, and improvement of any similar existing 
        facility within a 150-mile radius of such project, as selected 
        by the State of Pennsylvania'';
          (4) in item number 29, relating to Blacksburg, Virginia, by 
        inserting ``methods of facilitating public and private 
        participation in'' after ``demonstrate'';
          (5) in item number 35, relating to Alabama, by striking ``to 
        bypass'' and all that follows through ``I-85'' and inserting 
        ``beginning on U.S. Route 80 west of Montgomery, Alabama, and 
        connecting to I-65 south of Montgomery and I-85 east of 
        Montgomery'';
          (6) in item 49, relating to Suffolk County, New York, by 
        inserting after ``perimeters'' the following: ``and provide 
        funds to the towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead, Smithtown, East 
        Hampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Southampton for the 
        purchase of vehicles to meet the transportation needs of the 
        elderly and persons with disabilities'';
          (7) in item number 52, relating to Pennsylvania, by striking 
        ``2'' and all that follows through ``Pennsylvania'' and 
        inserting ``or rehabilitate (or both) highway and 
        transportation infrastructure projects within 30 miles of I-81 
        or I-80 in northeastern Pennsylvania'';
          (8) in item number 61, relating to Mojave, California, by 
        striking ``Mojave'' and inserting ``Victorville'' and by 
        inserting ``Mojave'' after ``reconstruct'';
          (8) in item number 68, relating to Portland/S. Portland, 
        Maine--
                  (A) by striking ``Portland/S. Portland,''; and
                  (B) by inserting after ``Bridge'' the following: 
                ``and improvements to the Carlton Bridge in Bath-
                Woolworth'';
          (9) in item number 76, relating to Tennessee, by inserting 
        ``Improved access to'' before ``I-81'' and striking 
        ``Interchange'' and inserting after ``Tennessee'' the 
        following: ``via improvements at I-181/Eastern Star Road and I-
        81/Kendrick Creek Road'';
          (10) in item number 100, relating to Arkansas, by striking 
        ``Thornton'' and inserting ``Little Rock'';
          (11) in item number 113, relating to Durham County, North 
        Carolina, by inserting after ``Route 147'' the following: ``, 
        including the interchange at I-85'';
          (12) in item number 114, relating to Corpus Christi to 
        Angleton, Texas, by striking ``Construct new multi-lane 
        freeway'' and inserting ``Construct a 4-lane divided highway'';
          (13) in item number 193, relating to Corning, New York, by 
        inserting ``and other improvements'' after ``expressway 
        lanes''; and
          (14) in item 196, relating to Orlando, Florida--
                  (A) by striking ``Orlando,''; and
                  (B) by striking ``Land'' and all that follows through 
                ``project'' and inserting ``One or more regionally 
                significant, intercity ground transportation 
                projects''.

SEC. 339. INTERMODAL PROJECTS.

  The table contained in section 1108(b) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2060-2063) is 
amended--
          (1) in item number 12, relating to Buffalo, New York, by 
        inserting after ``Project'' the following: ``and the Crossroads 
        Arena Project''; and
          (2) in item number 31, relating to Los Angeles, California, 
        by striking ``To improve ground access from Sepulveda Blvd. to 
        Los Angeles, California'' and inserting the following: ``For 
        the Los Angeles International Airport central terminal ramp 
        access project, $3,500,000; for the widening of Aviation 
        Boulevard south of Imperial Highway, $3,500,000; for the 
        widening of Aviation Boulevard north of Imperial Highway, 
        $1,000,000; and for transportation systems management 
        improvements in the vicinity of the Sepulveda Boulevard/Los 
        Angeles International Airport tunnel, $950,000''.

SEC. 340. MISCELLANEOUS REVISIONS TO SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND UNIFORM 
                    RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1987.

  (a) California.--Section 149(a)(69) of the Surface Transportation and 
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (101 Stat. 191), relating to 
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, California, is amended--
          (1) in the first sentence by striking ``highway'';
          (2) in the first sentence by striking ``and construction of 
        terminal and parking facilities at such airport''; and
          (3) by striking ``by making'' in the second sentence and all 
        that follows through the period at the end of such sentence and 
        inserting the following: ``by preparing a feasibility study and 
        conducting preliminary engineering, design, and construction of 
        a link between such airport and the commuter rail system that 
        is being developed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan 
        Transportation Authority.''.
  (b) Louisiana.--
          (1) Rural Access Project.--
                  (A) Rescission.--Effective October 1, 1995, the 
                unobligated balances on September 30, 1995, of funds 
                made available for section 149(a)(87) of the Surface 
                Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 
                1987 (101 Stat. 194; relating to West Calcasieu Parish, 
                Louisiana) are hereby rescinded.
                  (B) Funding.--Item number 17 of the table contained 
                in section 1106(a)(2) of the Intermodal Surface 
                Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2038), 
                relating to Lake Charles, Louisiana, is amended by 
                striking ``4.1'' and inserting ``8.8''.
          (2) I-10 exit ramp and other projects.--Section 149(a)(89) of 
        the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance 
        Act of 1987 (101 Stat. 191) is amended--
                  (A) by inserting ``and lake charles'' after 
                ``lafayette'' in the paragraph heading; and
                  (B) by inserting before the period at the end ``and, 
                of amounts made available to carry out this paragraph, 
                may use up to $456,022 to carry out a comprehensive 
                transportation and land use plan for Lafayette, 
                Louisiana, $1,000,000 to carry out a project to 
                construct an exit ramp from the eastbound side of 
                Interstate Route I-10 to Ryan Street in Lake Charles, 
                Louisiana, and $269,661 under this paragraph for 
                projects described in section 149(a)(90)''.
          (3) Contraband bridge.--Section 149(a)(90) of such Act (101 
        Stat. 191) is amended--
                  (A) by inserting ``and lake charles'' after 
                ``lafayette'' in the paragraph heading; and
                  (B) by inserting ``and a project to construct the 
                Contraband Bridge portion of the Nelson Access Road 
                Project'' before the period at the end.
  (c) Pennyslvania.--Section 149(a)(74) of the Surface Transportation 
and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (101 Stat. 192) is 
amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``and 
other projects in the counties of Bedford, Blair, Centre, Franklin, and 
Huntingdon, Pennsylvania''.
  (d) Maryland.--Section 149(a)(92) of such Act (101 Stat. 194) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``United states route 48'' and inserting 
        ``Washington and frederick counties''; and
          (2) by inserting ``and to construct an interchange between 
        Interstate Route I-70 and Interstate Route I-270 in Frederick 
        County, Maryland'' after ``Mountain Road''.
  (e) Bus Testing Facility.--Section 5318 of title 49, United States 
Code, is amended--
          (1) in subsection (b) by inserting ``or cooperative 
        agreement'' after ``contract'' each place it appears; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(f) Conversion of Contracts.--The Secretary may convert existing 
contracts entered into under this section into cooperative 
agreements.''.

SEC. 341. ELIGIBILITY.

  (a) Existing Project.--Section 108(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act 
of 1956 (23 U.S.C. 101 note) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``(1)'' before ``such costs may be further''; 
        and
          (2) by striking ``, and (2) the amount of such costs shall 
        not include the portion of the project between High Street and 
        Causeway Street''.
  (b) Other Existing Projects.--
          (1) Reconstruction and widening.--The project authorized by 
        section 162 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 
        1982 (96 Stat. 2136) shall include reconstruction and widening 
        to 6 lanes of existing Interstate Route 95 and of the 
        Pennsylvania Turnpike from United States Route 1 to the 
        junction with the New Jersey Turnpike.
          (2) Federal Share.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        law, the Federal share payable on account of the project 
        referred to in paragraph (1), including the additional through 
        roadway and bridge travel lanes, shall be 90 percent of the 
        cost of the project.
          (3) Tolls.--Notwithstanding section 301 of title 23, United 
        States Code, the project for construction of an interchange 
        between the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Interstate Route 95, 
        including the widening of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, shall be 
        treated as a reconstruction project described in section 
        129(a)(1)(B) of such title and tolls may be continued on all 
        traffic on the Pennsylvania Turnpike between United States 
        Route 1 and the New Jersey Turnpike.
  (c) Type II Noise Barriers.--No funds made available out of the 
Highway Trust Fund may be used to construct Type II noise barriers (as 
defined by section 772.5(i) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations) 
pursuant to sections 109(h) and (i) of title 23, United States Code if 
such barriers were not part of a project approved by the Secretary 
before the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 342. ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TOLL ROADS.

  The Secretary shall enter into an agreement modifying the agreement 
entered into pursuant to section 339 of the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public 
Law 102-338) to conform such agreement to the provisions of section 336 
of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-331). Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to change the amount of the previous appropriation in such 
section 339, and the line of credit provided for shall not exceed an 
amount supported by the previous appropriation. In implementing such 
sections 336 and 339, the Secretary may enter into an agreement 
requiring an interest rate that is higher than the rate specified in 
such sections.

SEC. 343. MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES.

  (a) Pan American Highway.--
          (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on the 
        adequacy of and the need for improvements to the Pan American 
        Highway.
          (2) Elements.--The study to be conducted under paragraph (1) 
        shall include, at a minimum, the following elements:
                  (A) Findings on the benefits of constructing a 
                highway at Darien Gap, Panama and Colombia.
                  (B) Recommendations for a self-financing arrangement 
                for completion and maintenance of the Pan American 
                Highway.
                  (C) Recommendations for establishing a Pan American 
                highway authority to monitor financing, construction, 
                maintenance, and operations of the Pan American 
                Highway.
                  (D) Findings on the benefits to trade and prosperity 
                of a more efficient Pan American Highway.
                  (E) Findings on the benefits to United States 
                industry through the use of United States technology 
                and equipment in construction of improvements to the 
                Pan American Highway.
                  (F) Findings on environmental considerations, 
                including environmental considerations relating to the 
                Darien Gap.
          (3) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress 
        a report on the results of the study conducted under this 
        subsection.
  (b) Highway Signs for National Highway System.--The Secretary shall 
conduct a study to determine the cost, need, and efficacy of 
establishing a highway sign for identifying routes on the National 
Highway System. In conducting such study, the Secretary shall make a 
determination concerning whether to identify National Highway System 
route numbers.
  (c) Compliance With Buy American Act.--
          (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on compliance 
        with the provisions of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c) 
        with respect to contracts entered into using amounts made 
        available from the Highway Trust Fund.
          (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress 
        a report on the results of the study conducted under paragraph 
        (1).

SEC. 344. COLLECTION OF BRIDGE TOLLS.

  Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, tolls collected for 
motor vehicles on any bridge connecting the boroughs of Brooklyn, New 
York, and Staten Island, New York, shall continue to be collected for 
only those vehicles exiting from such bridge in Staten Island.

SEC. 345. NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER.

  Section 30308(a) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``and $2,550,000 for fiscal year 1995'' and inserting ``and 
$2,550,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996''.

SEC. 346. ROADSIDE BARRIER TECHNOLOGY.

  Section 1058 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 109 note; 105 Stat. 2003) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``median'' and inserting 
        ``or temporary crashworthy'';
          (2) in subsection (a) by inserting ``crashworthy'' after 
        ``innovative'';
          (3) in the heading of subsection (c) by inserting 
        ``Crashworthy'' after ``Innovative'';
          (4) in subsection (c) by inserting ``crashworthy'' after 
        ``innovative'';
          (5) in subsection (c) by striking ``median'';
          (6) by inserting ``or guiderail'' after ``guardrail''; and
          (7) by inserting before the period at the end of subsection 
        (c) ``, and meets or surpasses the requirements of the National 
        Cooperative Highway Research Program 350 for longitudinal 
        barriers''.

SEC. 347. MOTORIST CALL BOXES.

  (a) Effective Control.--Section 131(c) of title 23, United States 
Code, is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and (5)'' and inserting the following: 
        ``(5) signs, displays, and devices identifying and announcing 
        free motorist aid call boxes and advertising their sponsorship 
        by corporations or other organizations, and (6)''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
        Secretary shall ensure that spacing of signs, displays, and 
        devices announcing motorist aid call boxes is reasonable.''.
  (b) Specific Service Signs.--Section 131(f) of title 23, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``For 
purposes of this subsection, the term `specific information in the 
interest of the traveling public' includes identification, 
announcement, and sponsorship of motorist aid call boxes.''.

SEC. 348. REPEAL OF NATIONAL MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT COMPLIANCE PROGRAM.

  Sections 141(a) and 154 of title 23, United States Code, and the item 
relating to section 154 in the analysis to chapter 1 of such title are 
repealed.

SEC. 349. ELIMINATION OF PENALTY FOR NONCOMPLIANCE FOR MOTORCYCLE 
                    HELMETS.

  Subsection (h) of section 153 of title 23, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ``a law described in subsection (a)(1) and'' each 
place it appears.

SEC. 350. SAFETY REST AREAS.

  Section 120(c) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``safety rest areas,'' after ``signalization,''.

SEC. 351. EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COMMERCIAL MOTOR 
                    VEHICLES AND THEIR OPERATORS.

  (a) Exemptions.--
          (1) Transportation of agricultural commodities and farm 
        supplies.--Regulations prescribed by the Secretary under 
        sections 31136 and 31502 of title 49, United States Code, 
        regarding maximum driving and on-duty time for drivers used by 
        motor carriers shall not apply to drivers transporting 
        agricultural commodities or farm supplies for agricultural 
        purposes in a State if such transportation is limited to an 
        area within a 50 air mile radius from the source of the 
        commodities or the distribution point for the farm supplies and 
        is during the planting and harvesting seasons within such 
        State, as determined by the State.
          (2) Transportation and operation of ground water well 
        drilling rigs.--Such regulations shall, in the case of a driver 
        of a commercial motor vehicle who is used primarily in the 
        transportation and operation of a ground water well drilling 
        rig, permit any period of 8 consecutive days to end with the 
        beginning of an off-duty period of 24 or more consecutive hours 
        for the purposes of determining maximum driving and on-duty 
        time.
          (3) Transportation of construction materials and equipment.--
        Such regulations shall, in the case of a driver of a commercial 
        motor vehicle who is used primarily in the transportation of 
        construction materials and equipment, permit any period of 8 
        consecutive days to end with the beginning of an off-duty 
        period of 24 or more consecutive hours for the purposes of 
        determining maximum driving and on-duty time.
          (4) Snow and ice removal.--A State may waive the requirements 
        of chapter 313 of title 49, United States Code, with respect to 
        a vehicle that is being operated within the boundaries of an 
        eligible unit of local government by an employee of such unit 
        for the purpose of removing snow or ice from a roadway by 
        plowing, sanding, or salting. Such waiver authority shall only 
        apply in a case where the employee is needed to operate the 
        vehicle because the employee of the eligible unit of local 
        government who ordinarily operates the vehicle and who has a 
        commercial drivers license is unable to operate the vehicle or 
        is in need of additional assistance due to a snow emergency.
          (5) Vehicles weighing less than 26,000 pounds.--The 
        provisions of subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code (and 
        regulations promulgated thereunder), applicable to commercial 
        motor vehicles shall not be enforced with respect to a vehicle 
        with gross vehicle weight rating of less than 26,000 pounds.
  (b) Effective Date.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall take 
effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
  (c) Review by the Secretary.--The Secretary may conduct a rulemaking 
proceeding to determine whether granting any exemption provided by 
subsection (a) is not in the public interest and would have a 
significant adverse impact on the safety of commercial motor vehicles. 
If, at any time, the Secretary determines that granting such exemption 
would not be in the public interest and would have a significant 
adverse impact on the safety of commercial motor vehicles, then the 
Secretary may prevent the exemption from going into effect, modify the 
exemption, or revoke the exemption.
  (d) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
          (1) 8 consecutive days.--The term ``8 consecutive days'' 
        means the period of 8 consecutive days beginning on any day at 
        the time designated by the motor carrier for a 24-hour period.
          (2) 24-hour period.--The term ``24-hour period'' means any 
        24-consecutive hour period beginning at the time designated by 
        the motor carrier for the terminal from which the driver is 
        normally dispatched.
          (3) Ground water well drilling rig.--The term ``ground water 
        well drilling rig'' means any vehicle, machine, tractor, 
        trailer, semi-trailer, or specialized mobile equipment 
        propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on highways to 
        transport water well field operating equipment, including water 
        well drilling and pump service rigs equipped to access ground 
        water.
          (4) Transportation of construction materials and equipment.--
        The term ``transportation of construction materials and 
        equipment'' means the transportation of construction materials, 
        construction finished related products, construction personnel, 
        and construction equipment by a driver within a 50 air mile 
        radius of the normal work reporting location of the driver.
          (5) Eligible unit of local government.--The term ``eligible 
        unit of local government'' means a city, town, borough, county, 
        parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant 
        to State law which has a total population of 3,000 individuals 
        or less.

SEC. 352. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS.

  Traffic control signs erected under the experimental project 
conducted in the State of Oregon in December 1991 shall be deemed to 
comply with the requirements of section 2B-4 of the Manual on Uniform 
Traffic Control Devices of the Department of Transportation.

SEC. 353. BRIGHTMAN STREET BRIDGE, FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Brightman Street 
Bridge in Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts, may be reconstructed to 
result in a clear channel width of less than 300 feet.

                      TITLE IV--TRUTH IN BUDGETING

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Truth in Budgeting Act''.

SEC. 402. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND, AIRPORT AND AIRWAY 
                    TRUST FUND, INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND, AND HARBOR 
                    MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND.

  The receipts and disbursements of the Highway Trust Fund, the Airport 
and Airway Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund--
          (1) shall not be included in the totals of--
                  (A) the budget of the United States Government as 
                submitted by the President, or
                  (B) the congressional budget (including allocations 
                of budget authority and outlays provided therein),
          (2) shall be exempt from any general budget limitation 
        imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget 
        outlays) of the United States Government, and
          (3) shall be exempt from any order issued under part C of the 
        Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

SEC. 403. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST DEFICIT SPENDING OUT OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY 
                    TRUST FUND.

  (a) In General.--Chapter 481 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 48110 the following new section:

``Sec. 48111. Safeguards against deficit spending

  ``(a) Estimates of Unfunded Aviation Authorizations and Net Aviation 
Receipts.--Not later than March 31 of each year, the Secretary, in 
consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall estimate--
          ``(1) the amount which would (but for this section) be the 
        unfunded aviation authorizations at the close of the first 
        fiscal year that begins after that March 31, and
          ``(2) the net aviation receipts at the close of such fiscal 
        year.
  ``(b) Procedure if Excess Unfunded Aviation Authorizations.--If the 
Secretary determines for any fiscal year that the amount described in 
subsection (a)(1) exceeds the amount described in subsection (a)(2), 
the Secretary shall determine the amount of such excess.
  ``(c) Adjustment of Authorizations if Unfunded Authorizations Exceed 
Receipts.--
          ``(1) Determination of percentage.--If the Secretary 
        determines that there is an excess referred to in subsection 
        (b) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall determine the 
        percentage which--
                  ``(A) such excess, is of
                  ``(B) the total of the amounts authorized to be 
                appropriated from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
                established under section 9502 of the Internal Revenue 
                Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9502) for the next fiscal year.
          ``(2) Adjustment of authorizations.--If the Secretary 
        determines a percentage under paragraph (1), each amount 
        authorized to be appropriated from the Airport and Airway Trust 
        Fund for the next fiscal year shall be reduced by such 
        percentage.
  ``(d) Availability of Amounts Previously Withheld.--
          ``(1) Adjustment of authorizations.--If, after a reduction 
        has been made under subsection (c)(2), the Secretary determines 
        that the amount described in subsection (a)(1) does not exceed 
        the amount described in subsection (a)(2) or that the excess 
        referred to in subsection (b) is less than the amount 
        previously determined, each amount authorized to be 
        appropriated that was reduced under subsection (c)(2) shall be 
        increased, by an equal percentage, to the extent the Secretary 
        determines that it may be so increased without causing the 
        amount described in subsection (a)(1) to exceed the amount 
        described in subsection (a)(2) (but not by more than the amount 
        of the reduction).
          ``(2) Apportionment.--The Secretary shall apportion amounts 
        made available for apportionment by paragraph (1).
          ``(3) Period of availability.--Any funds apportioned under 
        paragraph (2) shall remain available for the period for which 
        they would be available if such apportionment took effect with 
        the fiscal year in which they are apportioned under paragraph 
        (2).
  ``(e) Reports.--Any estimate under subsection (a) and any 
determination under subsection (b), (c), or (d) shall be reported by 
the Secretary to Congress.
  ``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the following 
definitions apply:
          ``(1) Net aviation receipts.--The term `net aviation 
        receipts' means, with respect to any period, the excess of--
                  ``(A) the receipts (including interest) of the 
                Airport and Airway Trust Fund during such period, over
                  ``(B) the amounts to be transferred during such 
                period from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund under 
                section 9502(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
                (other than paragraph (1) thereof).
          ``(2) Unfunded aviation authorizations.--The term `unfunded 
        aviation authorization' means, at any time, the excess (if any) 
        of--
                  ``(A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated 
                from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund which has not 
                been appropriated, over
                  ``(B) the amount available in the Airport and Airway 
                Trust Fund at such time to make such appropriation 
                (after all other unliquidated obligations at such time 
                which are payable from the Airport and Airway Trust 
                Fund have been liquidated).''.
  (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 481 of title 49, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``48111. Safeguards against deficit spending.''.

SEC. 404. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST DEFICIT SPENDING OUT OF THE INLAND 
                    WATERWAYS TRUST FUND AND HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST 
                    FUND.

  (a) Estimates of Unfunded Inland Waterways Authorizations and Net 
Inland Waterways Receipts.--Not later than March 31 of each year, the 
Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
Treasury, shall estimate--
          (1) the amount which would (but for this section) be the 
        unfunded inland waterways authorizations and unfunded harbor 
        maintenance authorizations at the close of the first fiscal 
        year that begins after that March 31; and
          (2) the net inland waterways receipts and net harbor 
        maintenance receipts at the close of such fiscal year.
  (b) Procedure If Excess Unfunded Inland Waterways Authorizations.--If 
the Secretary of the Army determines with respect to the Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund or the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for any 
fiscal year that the amount described in subsection (a)(1) exceeds the 
amount described in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall determine 
the amount of such excess.
  (c) Adjustment of Authorizations if Unfunded Authorizations Exceed 
Receipts.--
          (1) Determination of percentage.--If the Secretary of the 
        Army determines that there is an excess referred to in 
        subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the Secretary of the Army 
        shall determine the percentage which--
                  (A) such excess, is of
                  (B) the total of the amounts authorized to be 
                appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund or 
                the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, as the case may be, 
                for the next fiscal year.
          (2) Adjustment of authorizations.--If the Secretary of the 
        Army determines a percentage under paragraph (1), each amount 
        authorized to be appropriated from the Trust Fund for the next 
        fiscal year shall be reduced by such percentage.
  (d) Availability of Amounts Previously Withheld.--If, after an 
adjustment has been made under subsection (c)(2), the Secretary of the 
Army determines with respect to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund or the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund that the amount described in subsection 
(a)(1) does not exceed the amount described in subsection (a)(2) or 
that the excess referred to in subsection (b) with respect to the Trust 
Fund is less than the amount previously determined, each amount 
authorized to be appropriated that was reduced under subsection (c)(2) 
with respect to the Trust Fund shall be increased, by an equal 
percentage, to the extent the Secretary of the Army determines that it 
may be so increased without causing the amount described in subsection 
(a)(1) to exceed with respect to the Trust Fund the amount described in 
subsection (a)(2) (but not by more than the amount of the reduction).
  (e) Reports.--Any estimate under subsection (a) and any determination 
under subsection (b), (c), or (d) shall be reported by the Secretary of 
the Army to Congress.
  (f) Definitions.--For purposes of this title, the following 
definitions apply:
          (1) Airport and airway trust fund.--The term ``Airport and 
        Airway Trust Fund'' means the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
        established by section 9502 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
        1986.
          (2) Harbor maintenance trust fund.--The term ``Harbor 
        Maintenance Trust Fund'' means the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
        Fund established by section 9505 of the Internal Revenue Code 
        of 1986.
          (3) Highway trust fund.--The term ``Highway Trust Fund'' 
        means the Highway Trust Fund established by section 9503 of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
          (4) Inland waterways trust fund.--The term ``Inland Waterways 
        Trust Fund'' means the Inland Waterways Trust Fund established 
        by section 9506 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
          (5) Net harbor maintenance receipts.--The term ``net harbor 
        maintenance receipts'' means, with respect to any period, the 
        receipts (including interest) of the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
        Fund during such period.
          (6) Net inland waterways receipts.--The term ``net inland 
        waterways receipts'' means, with respect to any period, the 
        receipts (including interest) of the Inland Waterways Trust 
        Fund during such period.
          (7) Unfunded inland waterways authorizations.--The term 
        ``unfunded inland waterways authorizations'' means, at any 
        time, the excess (if any) of--
                  (A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated 
                from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund which has not been 
                appropriated, over
                  (B) the amount available in the Inland Waterways 
                Trust Fund at such time to make such appropriations.
          (8) Unfunded harbor maintenance authorizations.--The term 
        ``unfunded harbor maintenance authorizations'' means, at any 
        time, the excess (if any) of--
                  (A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated 
                from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund which has not 
                been appropriated, over
                  (B) the amount available in the Harbor Maintenance 
                Trust Fund at such time to make such appropriations.

SEC. 405. APPLICABILITY.

  This title (including the amendments made by this title) shall apply 
to fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1995.

                                Purpose

    The purpose of this legislation is to designate the 
National Highway System consisting of the National System of 
Interstate and Defense Highways and those principal arterial 
roads which are essential for interstate and regional commerce 
and travel, national defense, intermodal transfer facilities 
and international commerce; to provide relief to States due to 
the impact of section 1003(c) of the Intermodal surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act; to provide a trigger mechanism 
to force reauthorization of ISTEA in fiscal year 1996; to 
relieve States from certain penalties and mandates in current 
law; and to make technical and minor policy clarifications to 
the current Federal-aid highway, transit and safety programs.

                          Background and Need

                        NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

    The National Highway System, the centerpiece of ISTEA and 
the post-Interstate era, will be to the 21st century what the 
Interstate was to the 20th century--a beacon of progress to 
carry persons and goods safely and efficiently across our great 
country. The NHS, made up of the Interstate system and the most 
important highways in the country, is the backbone of the 
nation's transportation system. While comprising only 4.1% of 
the nation's total highway mileage, it will carry 40% of all 
highway travel, 75% of all trucking commerce and 80% of all 
tourist travel.
    The NHS is needed more than ever since America's reliance 
on its highways is at an all-time high. The vast majority of 
personal trips are over highways. 78% of the value of all 
freight is transported by truck over its roads. Over 75% of all 
the cities and towns in America rely exclusively on trucks for 
freight delivery. The NHS will extend the benefits of the 
Interstate system to areas of the U.S. not currently served by 
Interstate highways. Overall, the NHS will carry 42% of rural 
and 40% of all urban travel miles. 95% of all U.S. businesses 
and 90% of all U.S. households will be located within five 
miles of an NHS route. While the Interstate system serves many 
urban areas with populations over 50,000 and most state 
capitals, the NHS will serve them all.
    The NHS approved in this bill is the result of a process 
involving extensive consultations between the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA), the States and metropolitan planning 
organizations, which predated Congressional enactment of ISTEA. 
In the spring of 1990, the Public Works and Transportation 
Committee requested that FHWA produce an illustrative NHS 
system. In ISTEA, using this illustrative system as a guide, 
Congress required the Secretary of Transportation, within a 
two-year period after enactment of the Act, to submit a 
proposed NHS not to exceed 155,000 miles with 15% leeway 
upwards or downwards, for a maximum system of 178,000 miles. 
Congress stipulated that the NHS consist of the Interstate 
System, Congressional High-Priority Corridors identified in 
ISTEA, other urban and rural principal arterials, the strategic 
highway network, strategic highway network connectors to major 
military installations and highways which provide access to 
major ports, airports and other intermodal transportation 
facilities. In addition, ISTEA established a dedicated source 
of funds apportioned from the Highway Trust Fund for the NHS 
and established an interim NHS system until Congress designated 
the final system by legislation.
    With the illustrative NHS as a starting point, the States 
submitted to the FHWA their recommended systems based on 
assigned urban and rural mileage targets. The FHWA then worked 
with the States to finalize the NHS system. As required by 
ISTEA, on December 9, 1993, the Secretary transmitted to 
Congress a proposed NHS based on its review of, and adjustments 
to, the State route submissions. The development of that 
proposal was an undertaking unparalleled since the Interstate 
System was originally designed.
    Proposed by the Secretary is a National Highway System of 
over 160,745 miles--75% rural mileage and 25% urban mileage--
that is well within the mileage parameters set forth by ISTEA. 
Included in the Secretary's proposal is the approximate 45,000 
mile Interstate system; about 15,668 miles of the Strategic 
Highway Network (STRAHNET) identified by the Department of 
Defense; nearly 1890 miles of roads that provide access to 242 
military installations; 4,506 miles of Congressionally 
designated high priority corridors; and about 92,000 miles of 
principal arterial routes.
    The proposed NHS does not include all eligible highway 
connectors to major intermodal facilities. The FHWA, in 
consultation with States and metropolitan planning 
organizations, has been involved in a two year process using 
established criteria to identify all eligible connectors to 
major intermodal facilities. The FHWA plans to submit these 
proposed additions to the NHS in November of 1995. The bill 
requires these intermodal connectors to be submitted to the 
Congress within six months after enactment of the NHS 
legislation and to be approved by Congress prior to being made 
part of the system. However, in the interim, highway routes 
which connect to major intermodal facilities, and which the 
Secretary determines to be consistent with criteria for 
identifying such connectors, may be funded with NHS funds.
    The NHS must be approved by October 1, 1995 or $5.2 billion 
in fiscal year 1996 NHS and Interstate Maintenance funds (the 
authorized amount was $6.5 billion, but this amount has been 
reduced due to the application of section 1003(c)) and $6.5 
billion in fiscal year 1997 NHS and Interstate Maintenance 
funds are withheld until such time as the NHS is approved.

      SEQUESTRATION OF FISCAL YEAR 1997 HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT FUNDS

    ISTEA authorizes the Federal-aid highway and transit 
programs through fiscal year 1997. H.R. 2274 includes 
provisions to sequester fiscal year 1997 highway and transit 
funding until August 1, 1997 (other than funds necessary for 
the administration of the FHWA and FTA and funding for exempt 
programs) These two provisions have the effect of providing for 
the early reauthorization of ISTEA in 1996--one year ahead of 
schedule.
    The purpose of these provisions is to withhold fiscal year 
1997 highway and transit funds from being distributed to the 
States, but preserving the favorable funding levels provided in 
ISTEA, particularly in the transit program. Since these 
provisions sequester funds rather than rescind or eliminate the 
last year of highway and transit program funding, the budget 
authority is preserved.

    the need for an early reauthorization of the intermodal surface 
                 transportation efficiency act of 1991

    There are many compelling reasons why ISTEA should be 
reauthorized next year as opposed to waiting until 1997. First, 
the opportunity for the highest funding levels possible for the 
highway and transit programs is best next year. As the budget 
climate becomes increasingly restrictive as we continue our 
glidepath to a balanced budget by the year 2002 and if the 
transportation trust funds are not removed from the unified 
budget, it will become difficult to achieve adequate budget 
levels necessary to address the overwhelming transportation 
needs facing the country today.
    Second, the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation held a 
series of hearings early in 1995 where numerous witnesses--
ranging from Governors, State Department of Transportation 
officials, transit representatives and private transportation 
interests--testified as to the numerous mandates, burdens, and 
other types of inefficiencies in our current programs. It 
became clear that reform proposals were too numerous to be 
addressed in this National Highway System bill and that it 
would be more productive to concentrate reform efforts on a 
1996 reauthorization. A brief discussion of some of the 
programmatic areas identified as ripe for reform follows.
    A fundamental problem with ISTEA is that funding formulas 
are inherently unfair to many States, known as ``minimum 
allocation'' or ``donor states.'' Since the Highway Trust Fund 
was created in 1956, several States have seen a rate of return 
for the Federal gas tax dollars contributed by their State 
motorists that is as low as 75 or 77%. When Congress was 
writing a new transportation law in 1991, many States which had 
for years been paying more in gas taxes than they were 
receiving back in federal transportation funds saw an 
opportunity to restore equity in the program. Instead, the 
formulas ultimately included the ISTEA essentially locked in 
the donor status of these states since many of the core ISTEA 
highway programs are distributed based on a historic average 
that States had received in the previous five years.
    Because of this, ISTEA is replete with ``equity 
adjustment'' programs. ISTEA includes the Minimum Allocation 
program, Donor State bonus, 90 percent of payment guarantee, 
Hold Harmless and other programs in an effort to address the 
funding inequities to some States. Twenty-five states have 
received Minimum Allocation amounts in at least one of the 
years since ISTEA was enacted, and 18 states have received 
minimum allocation payments in each of the years 1992 through 
1995.
    When ISTEA was enacted in 1991, it was hailed as a new era 
in transportation, in part because it promised to turn back 
more authority and flexibility to State and local officials. 
The Act was perceived to be a more simple program than the 
previous one with fewer requirements and more freedom at the 
local level. However, when States actually began to implement 
ISTEA, they discovered that ISTEA was as complicated as any 
previous transportation program. Many programs have various 
suballocation and set-asides that result in the States 
accounting for more than 30 different highway funding 
categories. The complexity of the program is illustrated by 
this FHWA chart concerning just the Surface Transportation 
Program.


A top-to-bottom review of ISTEA in 1996 would provide an 
opportunity to explore the merits of a more straight-forward, 
less complicated program.
    Many witnesses at Subcommittee hearings testified as to the 
numerous regulations and other requirements issued by the FHWA 
that have left the States drowning in paper and forced to 
devote personnel and resources to generate paperwork to satisfy 
Washington while producing little tangible benefits for the 
actual program. Concerns have been raised as to the duplicative 
requirements, unnecessary studies, numerous reviews and other 
areas which complicate the delivery of actual highway or 
transit projects. An early reauthorization of ISTEA would 
enable the Congress to review various recommendations to 
determine whether we can indeed improve the program and cut 
back on lengthy, unnecessary delays while continuing to 
maintain a process which ensures adequate planning, opportunity 
for public comment and other necessary reviews.
    Reauthorizing ISTEA next year would allow the Congress to 
reassess the federal interest in our transportation programs--
as is being done currently in many other federal programs.
    This has already been reflected in the proposal put forth 
by the Department of Transportation and included in the 
Administration's fiscal year 1996 budget proposal. The 
Administration proposal would consolidate all the separate 
transportation grant programs, including aviation, and replace 
those various grants with the ``Unified Transportation 
Infrastructure Investment Program'' (``UTIIP''). The UTIIP, 
funded through the Highway and Aviation Trust Funds, would 
include a $10 billion Unified Allocation Grant that would be 
distributed by formula to State and local governments. The 
States would then be free to allocate those funds to the 
particular priorities of each individual state or area. One 
State program separate from the Unified Allocation Grant would 
be an $8 billion program for Interstate and National Highway 
System highways. As stated in accompanying budget documents, 
this separate Interstate and National Highway System funding 
category ``reflects the national interest in ensuring that the 
condition and performance of these systems are maintained.'' 
Funds would also be reserved for those transit projects for 
which full funding grant agreements had already been entered 
into and for operating assistance.
    Finally, both the House and Senate passed-versions of the 
1991 reauthorization were five-year acts. Over the past two 
years, the Committee has learned that six years is too long a 
period for an authorization, since changed circumstances will 
inevitably result in glaring deficiencies in such bills.
    For these various reasons, the right time to review and 
reauthorize the Federal aid highway and transit programs is 
sooner rather than later.

          MITIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF SECTION 1003(C) OF ISTEA

    Title II of the bill contains a series of provisions 
intended to mitigate the impact of the budget reductions in the 
fiscal year 1996 highway funds going out to the States due to 
the impact of section 1003(c) of ISTEA.

Background

    Section 1003(c) is an obscure provision of ISTEA that 
provided a cap on the amount of budget authority that could be 
made available during the first five fiscal years of ISTEA at 
$98.6 billion. Section 1003(c) was included in ISTEA in order 
for that statute to comply with the fiscal year 1991 Budget 
Resolution. The $98.6 billion figure represented the best 
estimate at the time of the amount of highway funding that 
would go out to the States during the first five years of 
ISTEA.
    At the time of the passage of ISTEA, it was impossible to 
formulate a precise estimate of ISTEA highway spending, however 
ISTEA's programs included two funding equity adjustments, the 
Minimum Allocation and Hold Harmless programs, that are 
designed to ensure that each State receives a minimum 
percentage of the overall amount of highway funding. During the 
first four years of ISTEA, funding for these two equity 
adjustment categories exceeded initial estimates.
    These programs required funding levels that were in excess 
of estimates for two primary reasons. The first is that Minimum 
Allocation and Hold Harmless ensure that each State receives a 
certain amount of total available funding and their formulas 
are based on factors that include the amount of tax revenues 
received into the Highway Trust Fund and the States' current 
and prior year funding levels. These were factors that could 
never be accurately predicted in advance. Second, these equity 
adjustment categories were authorized in ISTEA for ``such sums 
as may be necessary'', so that the total amount needed to fund 
each of those programs had no annual cap.
    Early in 1995, it became evident that funding during fiscal 
year 1996, the fifth year of ISTEA, would exceed the $98.6 
billion hard cap set in place by section 1003(c) if funding 
went out to each State at the level prescribed by ISTEA. The 
FHWA estimated that to comply with section 1003(c), total 
fiscal year 1996 highway funding would need to be cut by an 
estimated $4.2 billion. The FHWA informed the Committee that it 
would comply with section 1003(c) by cutting all highway 
programs, including programs subject to and exempt from the 
obligation limitation, across-the-board by a total of $4.2 
billion.
    This cut due to section 1003(c) would have a catastrophic 
effect on State highway planning. Each and every State has 
formulated Transportation Improvement Programs, (TIP), that set 
forth the menu of projects that would be funded for fiscal year 
1996 and the amounts for each project. This cut in new budget 
authority would have left many States unable to fund ongoing 
projects.
    The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's first 
priority was to fully restore the $4.2 billion in budget 
authority. The Committee persuaded the House Budget Committee 
to include in the Transportation Committee's budget allocation 
in the House-passed version of the fiscal year 1996 Budget 
Resolution an extra allocation of $4 billion. This would have 
permitted the Transportation Committee to fully restore funding 
cut by section 1003(c) in this bill. The additional allocation 
was not included in the Senate passed version of the fiscal 
year 1996 Budget Resolution, however. Unfortunately, the 
additional allocation was not included in the fiscal year 1996 
Budget resolution Conference Report.
    The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee then began 
work on remediating the impact of section 1003(c) in light of 
not being able to provide any additional budget authority. The 
resolution of that effort is included in this bill as Title II, 
the Highway Funding Restoration Act of 1995.
    Recently, the FHWA revised its estimate of the size of the 
cut required by sec. 1003(c) downward from $4.2 billion to $2.8 
billion. This revised estimate was due to (i) significantly 
lower estimates for fiscal year 1996 Minimum Allocation, and 
(ii) removing funds made available from the Emergency Relief 
program from the total budget authority made available by 
ISTEA, since that program is permanently authorized. This 
revised the level of the across-the-board cut from 20% to 13%.

Title II--The Highway Funding Restoration Act of 1995

    Title II of this bill remediates the impact of section 
1003(c) by providing approximately $1 billion in restored 
funding to the States, including full restoration of fiscal 
year 1996 Minimum Allocation, and provides flexibility to use 
unobligated balances accumulated in program categories for any 
type of project.
    The bill contains a three-part solution. First, the bill 
fully restores funding for the cuts in the exempt programs, 
Minimum Allocation and Projects, through technical changes to 
the Minimum Allocation Program. Second, the bill provides 
additional funding to the States derived from rescissions and 
transfers of unneeded or unused budget authority. Third, the 
bill gives States flexibility to designate unobligated balances 
of funds apportioned during ISTEA to be shifted from their 
specific categories so that States may continue to fund the 
ongoing, high priority projects programmed on their 
transportation improvement plans.

Restoration of exempt programs

    The bill provides for the full restoration of funding cuts 
to the programs exempt from the obligation limitation--Minimum 
Allocation and Projects--through technical changes to the 
Minimum Allocation program. In ISTEA, the Minimum Allocation 
program was authorized for ``such sums as may be necessary'' to 
funding equity between the States. In fiscal year 1995, Minimum 
Allocation funding was nearly $1.4 billion.
    The fiscal year 1996 and 1997 baseline projections for 
total spending in the Minimum Allocation program was estimated 
to be $1.4 billion, which was based on the fiscal year 1995 
levels. The 1996 baseline amount was reduced to $1.1 billion to 
reflect that Minimum Allocation would be reduced by 20% to 
comply with section 1003(c).
    These baseline projections did not take into account ISTEA 
programmatic changes which would have the effect of reducing 
Minimum Allocation in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. In fact, the 
FHWA estimated that Minimum Allocation (exclusive of the 
section 1003(c) reduction in fiscal year 1996) would be 
approximately $600 million in fiscal years 1996 to 1997. The 
impact of section 1003(c) would reduce fiscal year 1996 Minimum 
Allocation to approximately $485 million.
    This bill statutorily sets the Minimum Allocation program 
funding levels at the baseline levels of $1.1 billion for 
fiscal year 1996 and $1.385 billion in fiscal year 1997. These 
changes also have the effect of maintaining the baseline levels 
of funding beyond the fiscal year 1997 expiration of ISTEA. The 
Minimum Allocation program is then amended to provide for the 
distribution of these excess funds to the States.
    The result of the changes is that Minimum Allocation funds 
will be allocated as follows. First, the statutory fiscal year 
1996 and 1997 Minimum Allocation levels will be calculated 
according to existing law. The fiscal year 1996 statutory 
Minimum Allocation level (including the across the board 
reduction needed to be taken to comply with section 1003(c)) is 
estimated to be $485 million. The $615 million difference 
between the $1.1 billion authorized Minimum Allocation level 
and the $485 million actual level will be distributed as 
follows:
    First, funds will be distributed to bring Minimum 
Allocation up to the levels that it would have been funded at 
but for the application of section 1003(c). The first 
remediation is estimated to require $79 million to bring fiscal 
year 1996 Minimum Allocation up to the $565 million that it 
would have been but-for the application of section 1003(c).
    Second, if any excess funds remain after the restoration of 
Minimum Allocation funding, then funds will be distributed to 
bring ISTEA projects up to the levels that they would have 
received but for the application of section 1003(c). This is 
estimated to require $145 million.
    Third, if any funds remain after these two distributions, 
then they shall be distributed to the States according the 
final ISTEA funding distribution percentage. This formula is 
the percentage that each State received of the total amount of 
highway funding made available under ISTEA. This is estimated 
to be approximately $390 million. Any funds distributed to the 
States under this third tier are suballocated to urbanized 
areas of 200,000 in accordance with section 133(d)(3) of title 
23, in the same proportion that the cuts in funds suballocated 
to urbanized areas due to the application of section 1003(c) is 
to the total cut of all highway funding (subject to the 
obligation limitation) due to the application of section 
1103(c).

State High Priority Project Restoration Fund

    The bill also makes a series of rescissions of unused or 
unneeded budget authority derived from the Highway Trust Fund 
and distributes these funds to the States, by formula, for any 
project purpose eligible under Title 23 in order to makeup some 
of the budget authority subject to the obligation limitation 
being lost due to the impact of section 1003(c). All funds 
being distributed as part of this Fund will be made subject to 
the obligation limitation.
    The State High Priority Restoration Fund will distribute 
approximately $385 million in funds in fiscal year 1996 and 
$180 million in fiscal year 1997 to the States, derived solely 
from rescissions of unneeded contract authority, reductions in 
authorized amounts of certain contract authority programs, and 
transfers from certain programs.
    The rescissions are derived from those contained in last 
year's NHS bill, and from additional funds derived from old 
projects that are no longer viable and unobligated balances for 
the administration of the FHWA. These funds are then 
distributed to the States (including a suballocation for 
urbanized areas over 200,000 in population in proportion to the 
cut due to the application of section 1003(c) is to the total 
cut of all highway funding (subject to the obligation 
limitation) due to the application of section 1003(c)), 
according to the final ISTEA funding distribution percentage.
    The Committee has undertaken a top-to-bottom review of all 
contract authority projects and programs within its 
jurisdiction and determined that these programs are no longer 
justified or viable.

                         SUMMARY OF RESCISSIONS                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year 1996                   
            Rescission                 and earlier      Fiscal year 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982 Act Projects.................            877,695  .................
1987 Act and Later Projects.......          8,083,639  .................
Section 402 Unobligated Balance...         15,401,107  .................
Administrative Reserve............        150,000,000  .................
Congestion Pricing................         64,956,878         25,000,000
Maglev............................    \1\ 100,000,000        125,000,000
National High Speed Ground                                              
 Transportation Demonstration                                           
 Project..........................  .................          5,000,000
Sec. 402 Technical Correction.....     \1\ 20,000,000         25,000,000
Transit Unobligated Balance.......         10,800,000  .................
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................        369,869,319        180,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumes 20% CBO Baseline Reduction for section 1003(c).             

State unobligated balance flexibility

    The bill permits States to restore their net reductions in 
funding due to section 1003(c) through shifting unobligated 
balances of funds apportioned and allocated to the States 
during ISTEA from their current program categories. The bill 
creates the general rule that a State may shift funds, up to 
its net loss for fiscal year 1996 due to section 1003, from any 
apportionment category, subject to three exceptions. The bill 
is also structured to ensure that metropolitan planning 
organizations maintain their role in funding and project 
selection set out in ISTEA.
    Each State's net reduction in funding due to the 
application of section 1003(c) is determined for programs 
subject to the obligation limitation. Each State's net 
reduction is calculated by determining the amount that States 
would have been apportioned and allocated but for the 
application of section 1003(c). Any amounts allocated to the 
States under the State High Priority Project Restoration Fund 
in section 203 and the residual amounts under the revised 
Minimum Allocation program under Section 206 are subtracted to 
reach the net amount.
    The general policy is that States may designate any 
unobligated balance from any category and use those designated 
funds for any Title 23 eligible project up to the net amount of 
that State's reduction in budget authority due to the 
application of section 1003(c). This general rule is limited in 
three respects. First, unobligated balances of Surface 
Transportation Program (STP) funds suballocated to urbanized 
areas over 200,000 may only be designated by States to be spent 
outside of the metropolitan area if they receive the written 
concurrence of the metropolitan planning organization for that 
urbanized area. This is intended to preserve the ISTEA project 
and planning structure. Second, unobligated balances of funds 
from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program 
must continue to be obligated in non-attainment areas (if such 
State has a non-attainment area). However, unobligated balances 
of CMAQ funds designated by a State may be obligated for any 
title 23 eligible project. Finally, States may only designate 
up to one-third of unobligated balances of Interstate 
Construction funds. This limitation is to preserve unobligated 
balances of funds that were apportioned to complete certain 
unfinished Interstate system segments.

             eliminating penalties and unnecessary mandates

    The NHS bill aims to begin the process, to be fully 
completed when ISTEA is reauthorized, of streamlining the 
federal-aid highway, transit and safety programs. Over six days 
of hearings held by the Committee in early 1995 resulted in 
hundreds of witnesses testifying to the problems in the current 
program and the barrage of burdens, mandates and red tape that 
impede efficient delivery of transportation projects and 
effective management of the current transportation system. 
While comprehensive reform of the current program is left for 
the next reauthorization bill, this bill contains several 
provisions intended to provide immediate relief to some of the 
more onerous provisions and penalties in current law.
    Penalties for States' failure to implement six management 
systems are repealed. ISTEA mandated that states implement six 
management systems: pavement, bridge, safety, transit, 
congestion and intermodal. Under ISTEA, States are required to 
have all of these systems in place during fiscal year 1995 to 
avoid a 10% penalty in fiscal year 1996. The theory of 
management systems is to serve as a tool to better preserve 
existing transportation systems and more efficiently determine 
wise transportation investment decisions. However, many States 
testified that the current management system regulations are 
overly burdensome and prescriptive, often imposing new and 
unnecessary mandates. In light of the many concerns raised 
about the implementation of these systems, the Committee 
believes they should be fully reviewed and a determination made 
as to their benefits prior to any penalties exacted on States 
for noncompliance.
    The use of recycled paving material requirements of ISTEA 
and penalties for failure to implement these requirements are 
repealed. The so-called ``crumb rubber'' provision of ISTEA has 
perhaps attracted the most ire from the majority of State 
transportation departments than any other provision in ISTEA. 
Enacted as part of ISTEA as an incentive for the use of 
recycled rubber in paving material, but also with a heavy 
penalty for noncompliance, the provision has attracted strong 
opposition since passage of ISTEA. While several States have 
implemented crumb rubber paving projects with success, others 
have met with dismal failures. The rubber pavement industry 
attributes these failures primarily to lack of knowledge about 
the proper techniques in using the product. Since ISTEA 
however, more and more States have had success with the 
technology. The Committee believes that States know best how to 
build highways. The Committee also believes the crumb rubber 
program has done more harm than good to promote this 
technology. Ultimately, if it is a good technology with 
associated benefits, the market will be found for it. 
Therefore, the Committee has repealed the requirements and 
penalties of the recycled paving material program.
    H.R. 2274, as approved by the Committee, repeals the 
Federal maximum speed limit law and penalties for noncompliance 
with the law. By an amendment offered at the Surface 
Transportation Subcommittee mark-up, the national maximum speed 
limit and associated penalties for noncompliance were repealed. 
The speed limit repeal was upheld in Full Committee by defeat 
of an amendment to reverse the repeal, and defeat of an 
amendment to set the Federal maximum speed limit at 65 miles 
per hour. A majority of the Committee believes that states are 
inherently capable of making the best decisions for their 
citizens' safety and welfare, and that the states should be 
trusted to set the appropriate speed limits for their 
particular region's highway conditions.
    H.R. 2274, as approved by the Committee, repeals the 
penalty imposed on States which do not pass universal 
motorcycle helmet laws. Section 153 of title 23 provides that, 
if a state did not have such a law at any time during fiscal 
year 1994, that State would have 1.5% of its fiscal year 1995 
NHS, CMAQ, and STP funds transferred to section 402 safety 
programs. States which do not have a helmet law at any time 
during fiscal year 1995, will face having 3% of their NHS, 
CMAQ, and STP funds transferred to section 402 safety programs 
in fiscal year 1996. This 3% penalty then continues into the 
future. Since ISTEA was enacted in 1991, only one State has 
passed a motorcycle helmet law. In fiscal year 1995, a total of 
25 states were penalized with the loss of approximately $51 
million in highway construction funds because they did not have 
a universal helmet use law. For 1996, the amount of those 
penalties will double and up to $100 million will be 
transferred from highway construction to safety in 25 states. 
The Committee adopted an amendment to repeal the helmet 
penalties and to turn back to the States the right to make for 
themselves the determination on whether a helmet law should be 
enacted in the State.
    H.R. 2274, as approved by the Committee, also exempts 
certain motor carrier operations from burdensome motor carrier 
safety regulations. The Committee believes that many of the 
current motor carrier safety regulations are not applicable to 
certain categories of motor carrier operations or at certain 
heavy workload times of the year. In addition, many of these 
regulations are burdensome to comply with and have questionable 
safety benefits.

            THE TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUNDS BELONG OFF-BUDGET

    By a unanimously approved amendment adopted at the 
Subcommittee, the Committee adopted H.R. 842, the Truth in 
Budgeting Act, which removes four transportation trust funds 
from the unified Federal budget.
    Four trust funds within the federal budget stand out as 
unique in their purpose and operation. These four trust funds 
are the Highway Trust Fund, Aviation Trust Fund, Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund, and Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
    Each of these trust funds was established with a specific 
contract between the government and the taxpayer. This contract 
specified that certain user fees or taxes would be levied on 
the users of highways, airports, inland waterways, and harbors. 
In return, the government pledged to use the receipts to build 
transportation infrastructure for the taxpayer's use.
    Unfortunately, the federal government has violated this 
contract with transportation users. Each of the four trust 
funds carries a large cash balance. These cash balances 
represent taxes paid by users that are being held by the 
federal government to mask the true size of the deficit.
    For the Highway Trust Fund, the balance is now nearly $20 
billion; the Aviation Trust Fund balance is over $12 billion; 
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund balance is nearly $200 million; 
and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund balance stands at $300 
million. In effect, over time, the federal government has 
collected and withheld some $32 billion in earmarked receipts.
    The surpluses show that the current budget process does not 
recognize the unique nature of these funds. Each of the four 
transportation trust funds has the following characteristics:
          (1) Wholly self-financed by the users.
          (2) Dedicated revenue sources.
          (3) Self-supporting, operating on a pay-as-you-go 
        basis.
          (4) Deficit proof, with expenditures limited to 
        receipts.
          (5) Invests in infrastructure capital programs.
          (6) Finances long-range construction programs, which 
        benefit from certainty in funding.
    The solution is clear: remove these trust funds from the 
unified budget and account for their receipts and expenditures 
off-budget. This action will restore the contract with 
transportation users and will not adversely affect the deficit.

Theory and operation of transportation trust funds

    In establishing the Highway, Aviation, Inland Waterways, 
and Harbor Maintenance trust funds, Congress had specific 
policy reasons for choosing a user fee (or excise tax) funding 
mechanism and a trust fund. Prior to the establishment of the 
trust funds, transportation infrastructure programs were funded 
out of general revenues. Everyone paid for the capital 
improvements, regardless of use.
    With the creation of the trust funds, a set of approximate 
user charges were levied that drew a relationship between those 
benefiting from the government expenditure and the tax paid. On 
the other side of the coin, with the creation of a trust fund, 
the payers of the user fee or excise tax had some assurance 
that proceeds would finance a program from which they benefit 
directly.
            Highway Trust Fund
    The Highway Trust Fund, established in 1956, is financed by 
excise taxes on gasoline, diesel, and special fuels, as well as 
taxes on heavy trucks and tires. Total income in fiscal year 
1994 was $20 billion. The current cash balance is also $20 
billion.
    The Highway Account of the trust fund pays for the 
construction and maintenance of Federal-aid highways, bridge 
rehabilitation and replacement, highway safety programs, and 
grants for research. A separate Transit Account pays for 
capital expenditures associated with mass transit projects.
            Aviation Trust Fund
    Established in 1970, the Aviation Trust Fund is financed by 
excise taxes on air passenger tickets, domestic air cargo, and 
noncommercial aviation fuel. For fiscal Year 1994, income 
totalled $6 billion and the cash balance was $12 billion.
    The Aviation fund fully finances capital programs of the 
Federal Aviation Administration, including airport improvement 
grants, modernization of facilities and equipment for the air 
traffic control system, and research and development. The trust 
fund is also permitted to finance approximately half of the 
FAA's operations account.
            Inland Waterways Trust Fund
    The Inland Waterways Trust Fund, begun in 1978, is funded 
by excise taxes on the fuel used in commercial waterway 
transportation by vessels on specified inland or intracoastal 
waterways. The fund covers 50 percent of the construction and 
rehabilitation expenditures for navigation projects on these 
waterways. Fiscal year 1994 income was $100 million and the 
fund balance was $160 million.
            Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
    Established in 1986, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is 
financed by: 1) ad valorem user fees imposed on commercial 
cargo loaded and unloaded by specified U.S. ports open to 
public navigation and 2) through a portion of Saint Lawrence 
Seaway tolls. The fund pays for Corps of Engineers maintenance 
of harbors and pays for operations and maintenance costs of the 
Saint Lawrence Seaway. Receipts for fiscal year 1993 were $650 
million and the fund balance is $300 million.
    Each of these trust funds operates on a deficit proof 
basis. Expenditures are limited to receipts collected. Because 
they operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, they do not contribute 
one nickel to the federal deficit. In fact, if all Federal 
programs worked as well, the entire Federal budget would be in 
balance.

Removing the trust funds from the unified budget will not cause fiscal 
        chaos

    Unified budget proponents cite a 1967 report by the 
President's Commission on Budget Concepts as justification for 
including transportation trust funds on budget. The theory is 
that a unified budget provides a total macroeconomic picture of 
the activities of the federal government and its total deficit 
(and, thus, total borrowings from the private sector).
    Transportation trust funds do not belong in a unified 
budget because:
          (1) By definition, they are deficit proof and 
        removing them from the unified budget could not 
        understate the deficit.
          (2) The unified budget implies that trust fund 
        revenues can be used for purposes other than those to 
        which the funds are dedicated by law. Self-financed 
        programs are pitted against general fund programs for 
        scarce appropriations.
          (3) By using trust fund surpluses to understate the 
        real deficit in the government's operations, the public 
        is actually misled.
          (4) Removing the trust funds from the unified budget 
        does not preclude publication of trust fund 
        transactions. For example, while the Social Security 
        Trust Fund is technically off-budget, its transactions 
        are commonly included in presentations of the federal 
        budget.
          (5) Removing the four transportation trust funds will 
        not skew the remaining budget as total outlays from 
        these programs comprise only 1.6 percent of the federal 
        budget.
    Others have argued that it is unfair to exclude these 
programs from across-the-board-cuts or potential 
sequestrations. Again, there are compelling reasons to separate 
the transportation trust funds. Because the trust funds, by 
definition, cannot contribute to the deficit, those programs 
that do cause the deficit should shoulder reductions. 
Additionally, because the trust funds consist of dedicated 
funds, any trust fund reduction cannot be used to fund another 
program.
    Furthermore, Congress and the Executive branch retail all 
their current controls on trust fund programs once they go off-
budget. Authorizing committees will still provide contract 
authority, the level of which is closely scrutinized. Also, 
both the Appropriations and authorizing committees also will 
still be able to set obligation limitations to manage the 
programs. Similarly, the tax writing committees retain all 
their current power to set and adjust revenues into the trust 
funds.
    The only change will be that there will no longer be an 
incentive to use trust fund surpluses to mask the operating 
deficit. This will improve the overall budget process by 
removing the current budget bias toward operating programs at 
the expense of the capital investments made by these trust 
funds.
    Finally, some argue that providing off-budget status to 
these trust funds will encourage other programs to seek special 
budget status. As was noted, these four funds are unique in 
their financing and operation. While there are some 170 trust 
funds in the entire federal budget, most are purely 
administrative in nature. Just 19 trust funds are funded 
through excise taxes, and only the four transportation funds 
are used to provide capital expenditures on infrastructure.

Transportation capital investments have suffered from remaining on-
        budget

    The $32 billion balance in these four trust funds has 
accrued at the expense of billions of dollars of documented 
infrastructure needs. Unmet infrastructure needs, just to 
maintain the current system, are: $212 billion for highways, 
$78 billion for bridges, $18 billion for transit, $50 billion 
for airports, and at least $3 billion for inland waterways.
    This neglect of infrastructure hurts the bottom line for 
the economy. According to economists, some 15 to 60 percent of 
the total falloff in productivity growth in recent decades is 
attributable to shortfalls in funding U.S. infrastructure.
    This nation's businesses recognize this link between 
transportation improvements and economic growth. A recent 
survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses 
found that 81 percent of its members supported taking the trust 
funds off-budget. It is precisely the type of national 
infrastructure system supported by the NHS that will lead to 
greater productivity.
    Withholding trust fund monies also directly affects 
transportation safety. Nearly any delayed airport or air 
traffic improvement has, as a matter of course, an effect on 
safety. Similarly, highway waterway, and harbor improvements 
have the beneficial effect of providing safer travel.
    Finally, the capriciousness of the present budget process 
promotes inefficiency and waste in transportation programs. 
Because infrastructure projects have long lead times and take 
years to construct, stability and assurance of funding lower 
costs. Similarly, delayed projects suffer from inflation cost 
increases and higher costs from deferred maintenance and 
rehabilitation.

Truth in budgeting and taxation

    The existence of on-budget trust fund surpluses only 
reinforces the public's belief that they are not getting an 
honest return for the taxes they pay to Washington. We can 
restore the contract we have with taxpayers, and help restore 
their faith in government, by ensuring the integrity of these 
self-financed programs.

                          OTHER RELATED ISSUES

    During its hearings on the National Highway System and 
ancillary issues, the Committee became aware of several issues 
which, because of the cut in funding to the States, it 
recommends be implemented in order to make the highway program 
more efficient.
    The Committee urges the Secretary, to the extent feasible, 
to provide incentives and additional flexibility to the states 
and localities to demonstrate and adopt market ready, 
innovative, cost saving infrastructure repair, retrofit and 
renewal technologies consistent with Section 6005 of ISTEA, 
including but not limited to the use of advanced material 
technologies.
    The Committee also urges the Secretary to work in 
conjunction with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to aid in 
its planning efforts to implement a pilot for Electronic Toll 
and Traffic Management utilizing Intelligent Transportation 
System technology and to make available ITS funds for this 
effort. The goal of the program is to effectively manage 
vehicular traffic flow, reduce traffic congestion, increase 
safety, enhance travel information and advisories and generally 
provide for more efficient movement of passengers and 
commercial goods on the Pennsylvania Turnpike system.
    The Committee urges the FHWA to consider the use of ``wrap-
up'' insurance products when approving Federal-aid highway 
projects. These ``wrap-up'' provisions may result in overall 
savings on the cost of projects through more efficient use of 
insurance.
    The Committee has received testimony in the past and is 
aware of continuing controversy surrounding the Route 710 gap 
closure project which would construct a six-lane, 6.2 mile 
state highway from the northern terminus of I-710 at Alhambra 
through South Pasadena to a point south of I-110 in Pasadena. 
Concerns have been transmitted to the Committee from Members of 
Congress, local officials and public citizens as to whether the 
710 freeway proposal satisfies all relevant Federal 
requirements. Should doubts continue to exist, the Secretary 
should withhold Federal Record of Decision approval or remand 
the matter to the State for such additional analyses as are 
necessary and appropriate. In addition, the multi-mode/low 
build alternative should be thoroughly reviewed and considered 
as to the ability of the alternative to meet project objectives 
at a lower cost and with fewer disruptions to the environment 
and affected communities.
    Congress has previously authorized expenditures under the 
Federal-aid highway program recognizing the need to maintain 
and preserve highway investments. Maintaining and preserving 
transit assets is similarly important. Thus, the Committee 
directs the Federal Transit Administration to implement a bus 
overhaul program to permit transit operators to use capital 
program funds to the maximum extent possible to maintain and 
preserve transit assets, as well as to mitigate the impact of 
reductions in federal operating assistance. FTA should consider 
defining bus overhaul expenses on the basis of bus maintenance 
costs annually reported by transit agencies through the Federal 
section 15 reporting process. This could include in-house bus 
maintenance activities as well as contracted work. Basing the 
bus overhaul program on section 15 data collection/reporting 
would take advantage of a existing, commonly understood process 
and would avoid the establishment of additional record keeping 
or oversight. Such procedures would be broadly applicable 
nationally to systems of all sizes.
    The Committee instructs the Federal Railroad Administration 
to transfer title to the State of Florida of aluminum now 
sitting unutilized at the Transportation Technology Center, 
near Pueblo Colorado. The transfer is for the purpose of 
assisting the State of Florida in connection with a project 
being undertaken by American Maglev Technology, Inc., to 
demonstrate magnetic levitation technology in the United 
States. The aluminum has not been utilized for several years 
and could be useful asset to AMT. This recommendation is based 
on the fact that AMT is unique in the nation in its maglev 
research and development project and has a clear need for this 
aluminum in some form to construct either guidance rail or 
another part of the project.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

                    title i--national highway system

Sec. 101. National Highway System designation

    This section approves the most recent National Highway 
System map submitted to Congress by the Secretary of 
Transportation. The section also provides that future 
modifications must be approved by Congress. Not later than 180 
days after the enactment of the National Highway System 
Designation Act of 1995, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
the proposed modifications to the National Highway System, 
including connections to intermodal transportation facilities 
and upon completion of feasibility studies, the routings of 
high priority corridors.
    Subsection (4) makes connections to intermodal facilities 
that are consistent with the Secretary's criteria eligible to 
receive National Highway System funds until Congress modifies 
to the National Highway System to include connections to 
intermodal facilities.

Sec. 102. Distribution of fiscal year 1997 highway funds

    Subsection (a) prevents the Secretary from distributing 
fiscal year 1997 Federal highway apportionments and allocations 
subject to the obligation ceiling (other than administrative 
expenses) prior to August 1, 1997.
    Funds for exempt programs (Minimum Allocation, Projects and 
Emergency Relief) have been permitted to be distributed because 
it was not possible to sequester such funds without creating 
unacceptable budgetary implications. The Committee intends that 
the sequestration of the basic program funds requires that the 
Highway and Transit programs be reauthorized.
    Subsection (b) provides that for purposes of determining 
allocation for fiscal year 1997, the Secretary shall treat 
apportionments and allocations that are subject to subsection 
(a) as having been made on October 1, 1996.

Sec. 103. Treatment of fiscal year 1997 transit funds

    Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to not apportion or 
allocate prior to August 1, 1997, Federal transit funds (other 
than administrative expenses) authorized to be appropriated or 
made available for fiscal year 1997 under section 5338 of Title 
49.
    Subsection (b) provides that certain transit funds 
appropriated after the date of enactment of the Act may not be 
obligated until August 1, 1997.

                 title ii--highway funding restoration

Sec. 201. Short title

    This section states that this title may be cited as the 
``Highway Funding Restoration Act of 1995.''

Sec. 202. Findings and purposes

    Subsections (a) and (b) include findings and purposes 
regarding the reduction in budget authority made available to 
the States in fiscal year 1996 due to the impact of section 
1003(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
of 1991 (ISTEA).

Sec. 203. State High Priority Project Restoration Program

    Subsection (a) creates a State High Priority Project 
Restoration Program for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and sets out 
that States may obligate such funds on any project currently 
eligible under the Minimum Allocation program. This program 
redistributes funds that are derived from rescissions of 
previously apportioned or allocated budget authority.
    Subsection (b) provides that the funds should be allocated 
among the States by the final ISTEA funding distribution 
percentages.
    Subsection (c) clarifies that funds allocated under this 
program do not affect certain funding equity calculations.
    Subsection (d) provides that the funds made available for 
obligation will be available for four fiscal years and are 
subject to the obligation limitation.
    Subsection (e) ensures that of the funds allocated to the 
States under this program, funds shall be allocated to 
urbanized areas over 200,000 within each State in the 
proportion set forth in ISTEA.
    Subsection (f) provides that funds for planning 
expenditures may be deducted from amounts made available under 
this section.
    Subsection (g) provides that there are authorized to be 
appropriated, out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
Mass Transit Account), to carry out this section $360,420,595 
for fiscal year 1996 and $155,000,000 for fiscal year 1997. 
Added to these amounts are transfers of $21.75 million from the 
Congestion Pricing Pilot in fiscal year 1996 and $25 million in 
fiscal year 1997. These funds are derived from rescissions, 
reductions in authorized amounts and transfers of budget 
authority derived from the Highway Trust Fund contained in 
section 204 of this Act.
    Subsection (h) clarifies the applicability of chapter 1 of 
title 23, United States Code, to funds made available under 
this section.
    Subsection (i) defines the term ``territories.''

Sec. 204. Rescissions

    Subsection (a) rescinds funds from previously authorized 
projects that are no longer viable and from unobligated 
balances of funds previously made available and derived from 
the Highway Trust Fund.
    Subsection (b) reduces the authorized funding levels for 
certain programs funded from the Highway Trust Fund for fiscal 
years 1996 and 1997.
    Subsection (c) provides that certain funds derived from the 
Highway Trust Fund made available for fiscal years 1996 and 
1997, shall be transferred to carry out section 203 of this 
Act.

Sec. 205. State unobligated balance flexibility

    Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to inform each State 
as of October 1, 1995 (or as soon as possible thereafter) of 
the net amount of the reduction in budget authority subject to 
the obligation limitation each State shall incur as a result of 
section 1003(c). In determining the net amount of each State's 
reduction, the Secretary shall deduct the amounts allocated to 
each State in fiscal year 1996 pursuant to the High Priority 
Project Restoration Program in section 203 of this Act, and any 
amounts made available to each State pursuant to Section 
157(a)(4)(B)(iii) of title 23.
    Subsection (b) sets forth the general rule that on or 
before November 1, 1995 (or as soon as possible thereafter), 
each State shall designate unobligated balances of funds 
apportioned or allocated on or before September 30, 1995, and 
which are subject to the obligation ceiling, that may be made 
available for any purpose currently eligible under the Minimum 
Allocation program (in the amounts determined under subsection 
(a)). The Secretary is directed to make these funds available 
to the States no later than November 15, 1995 (or as soon as 
possible thereafter).
    Subsection (c) directs that unobligated balances of funds 
attributed to urbanized areas with a population of over 200,000 
may not be designated by the State under subsection (b) without 
the concurrence, in writing, of the Metropolitan Planning 
Organization designated for such area.
    Subsection (d) provides that unobligated balances of funds 
apportioned to the States under the Congestion Mitigation and 
Air Quality Program may be designated by a State under 
subsection (b), but such funds must be obligated in non-
attainment areas (as defined by the Clean Air Act).
    Subsection (e) limits a State from designating pursuant to 
subsection (b) more than one-third of funds apportioned or 
allocated to the State for Interstate Construction and not 
obligated as of September 30, 1995.
    Subsection (f) provides that the funds made available to 
carry out this section shall be available for obligation for 
the same period for which such amounts were originally made 
available and shall be subject to the provisions of title 23, 
United States Code.
    Subsection (g) provides that this section does not affect 
funding equity calculations.
    Subsection (h) defines the term ``State.''

Sec. 206. Minimum allocation

    Subsection (a) clarifies the method of distribution of 
funds made available under the Minimum Allocation program in 
fiscal years 1996 and 1997. It provides that if the amounts 
authorized to be made available for minimum allocation exceed 
the amounts required to be distributed by ISTEA to the States 
under the Minimum Allocation program, then any additional 
amounts shall be distributed first to each State in such amount 
as may be necessary so that such State receives the full amount 
of minimum allocation that would have been allocated to such 
State without the application of section 1003(c). If any excess 
funds remain, then such excess funds would next be distributed 
to each State in the amount necessary for each State to receive 
the full amount authorized in ISTEA for projects that would 
have been allocated to such State without the application of 
section 1003(c). If any excess funds remain after this 
distribution, then such funds shall be allocated to each State, 
for any purpose currently eligible under the Minimum Allocation 
program, by the final ISTEA funding distribution percentages.
    Subsection (b) ensures that of the funds allocated to the 
States pursuant to section 157(a)(4)(B)(iii), an amount of 
funds shall be allocated to urbanized areas over 200,000 within 
each State in the proportion set forth in ISTEA.
    Subsection (c) authorizes funding levels.

Sec. 207. Relief from mandates

    Subsection (a) directs that the Secretary shall not 
penalize States for failure to implement management systems 
during fiscal year 1996.
    Subsection (b) strikes the requirement that States meet 
minimum utilization requirements for asphalt pavement 
containing recycled rubber and the penalties for failure to 
meet those requirements.
    The Committee observes that ``tire buffings'' are a 
byproduct of the retreading of reusable tires and are not 
intended to be included in the definition of ``crumb rubber'' 
from whole or shredded scrap tires. Accordingly, the Department 
of Transportation is directed to focus its crumb rubber 
modifier binder research and testing efforts under section 1038 
on crumb rubber material derived from whole or shredded scrap 
tires.

Sec. 208. Definitions

    This section defines ``authorized funds'' and ``urbanized 
area.''

                  title iii--miscellaneous provisions

Sec. 301. Distribution of transit operating assistance limitation

    Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to distribute transit 
operating assistance so that each urbanized area that had a 
population under the 1990 census of less than 200,000 will 
receive 75 percent of the amount such area received under the 
fiscal year 1995 distributions. Due to the extreme reductions 
in appropriated levels of operating assistance from fiscal 
years 1995 to fiscal year 1996, the Committee has provided for 
a redistribution of this reduced amount, so that less of the 
burden will fall on smaller transit authorities between 50,000 
and 200,000 population, who depend on Federal operating 
assistance for up to 50% of their operating budgets. These 
authorities are held at 75% of their fiscal year 1995 operating 
level.
    Subsection (b) instructs the Secretary to direct each area 
with a population of 1,000,000 or greater to give priority 
consideration to the impact of reductions on smaller transit 
authorities operating within the area and to consider the needs 
and resources of such transit authorities when distributing 
such limitation among all transit authorities operating in the 
area. This provision is intended to address the concerns of 
smaller properties operating within an urbanized area of over 
1,000,000 in population.

Sec. 302. Accountability for high cost Federal-aid projects

    Subsection (a) requires that recipients of Federal 
assistance for a highway or transit project with an estimated 
cost of $1 billion or more submit to the Secretary an annual 
financial plan. The plan must be based on detailed annual 
estimates of the cost to complete the remaining elements of the 
project and on reasonable assumptions of future increases in 
the cost to complete the project.
    Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to make 
recommendations to Congress on whether or not future Federal 
assistance should be withheld with respect to any project 
described in subsection (a) for which an annual plan is not 
submitted under subsection (a) or for which the Secretary 
determines that the estimates or assumptions in the plan are 
not reasonable.
    Subsection (c) instructs the Secretary to submit to 
Congress an annual report on the financial plans submitted to 
the Secretary under this section, and any recommendation made 
by the secretary under subsection (b) in the preceding fiscal 
year.

Sec. 303. Letters of intent and full financing grant and early systems 
        work agreements

    This section prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from 
issuing a letter of intent, or entering into a full financing 
grant agreement or early systems work agreement, for a transit 
project or operable segment of a project unless the full amount 
of Federal financial responsibility for the project or operable 
segment has been included in an authorization law. This 
prohibition shall not apply to any project for which a letter 
of intent was issued before the date of enactment and to any 
project included as an element of an interrelated project which 
also includes another project for which a letter of intent was 
issued before such date of enactment. The provision will be in 
effect until the Federal-aid highway and transit programs are 
reauthorized.
    In the current budgetary climate, the Committee believes 
that prior to the Federal Transit Administration entering into 
contracts which potentially commit the Federal government to 
large sums of trust funds to construct new transit projects or 
extensions of existing projects, those projects should be fully 
authorized for the full Federal share of the project. While 
full funding grant agreements are contingent on future 
appropriations, in the history of the program, there has never 
been a full funding grant agreement that has not ultimately 
received the designated Federal amounts of funding.

Sec. 304. Report on capital projects for fixed guideway systems and 
        extension to existing fixed guideway systems

    This section outlines additional information which must be 
included in the annual report on Capital Projects for Fixed 
Guideway Systems and Extensions of Existing Fixed Guideway 
Systems, including an analysis of funding requirements, 
planning and study processes undertaken, and efforts undertaken 
to seek alternative funding sources for the project.

Sec. 305. Repeal and modification of existing projects

    Subsection (a) repeals the authorization for the Long Beach 
Metro Link Fixed Rail Project.
    Subsection (b) reduces the authorization for the Honolulu 
Rapid Transit Project.

Sec. 306. Miscellaneous transit projects

    This section modifies several previously authorized transit 
projects. Authorizations are provided for certain projects 
included in the fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation 
Appropriations bill as passed by the House.
    Funds made available for the Central Puget Sound Regional 
Transit Project in subsection (r) of Section 306 may be used 
for a system of public transportation services within the 
urbanized Central Puget Sound region operating principally in 
exclusive rights-of-way and the supporting services and 
facilities necessary to implement such a system, including 
interim express services, commuter rail, light rail, regional 
bus lines, dedicated busways, no-fare transit, van-pools, 
ridesharing, paratransit, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and any 
other alternative which overall provides a substantially higher 
level of passenger capacity, speed and service frequency than 
traditional public transportation systems operating principally 
in general purpose of roadways.

Sec. 307. Metropolitan planning for transit projects

    This section amends section 5303(b) of title 49 to add 
consideration of recreational travel and tourism to the 
metropolitan planning process under the transit program.

Sec. 308. Contracting for engineering and design services

    This section amends section 5235 of title 49, relating to 
the letting of contracts and subcontracts funded in whole or in 
part with Federal funds under the Federal transit program. The 
purposes of this section are to remove barriers to competition, 
promote use of state of the art technology, save taxpayers' 
money through reciprocity of pre-award audits, and expedite the 
award of contracts.
    The recipient of Federal funds must accept and use indirect 
cost rates established by a government agency in accordance 
with Federal Acquisition Regulations for one-year applicable 
accounting periods in estimating, negotiating, and 
administrating contracts. Recipients must notify affected firms 
before requesting or using the cost and rate data and must keep 
the information confidential.
    The provisions of this section will take effect two years 
after the date of enactment. A State, however, has the option 
of enacting legislation to adopt an alternative process to 
promote engineering and design quality and to ensure maximum 
competition by professional companies providing engineering and 
design services. Alternatives a State legislature could enact 
under the state option include:
          Require and/or set overhead ceilings, which in their 
        judgment promote engineering/design quality and maximum 
        competition for companies of all sizes.
          Require and/or set salary caps, which in their 
        judgment promote engineering/design quality and maximum 
        competition for companies of all sizes.
          Refuse to accept audits done by other States and 
        insist upon its own State auditors doing the work.

Sec. 309. Ferry boats and terminal facilities

    This section amends Section 129(c)(5) of Title 23 to allow 
Federal participation in the construction of ferry boats and 
terminal facilities that operate between a state and a point in 
Canada.

Sec. 310. Utilization of the private sector for surveying and mapping 
        services

    This section instructs the Secretary to issue guidance to 
encourage States to use the private sector for surveying and 
mapping service for highway projects to the maximum extent 
feasible. For the purposes of carrying out the section, the 
Committee intends that the term ``mapping and surveying'' 
includes such activities as measuring, locating, and preparing 
maps, charts, surveys, aerial photographs, satellite images, or 
other graphical or digital presentations depicting natural or 
manmade physical features, phenomena, and legal boundaries of 
the Earth.

Sec. 311. Formula grant program

    Subsection (a) amends section 5307(d)(1)(J)(i) of title 49 
to clarify that the hiring of law enforcement or security 
personnel is an eligible expense under the transit security 
program.
    Subsection (b) allows 50 percent of the publicly funded 
ferry boat service provided to the City of Avalon, California 
to be counted under the formula transit program.

Sec. 312. Accessibility of over-the-road buses to individuals with 
        disabilities

    This section amends section 306(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the 
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 to provide that 
accessibility requirements for private over-the-road buses must 
be met by small providers within three years after the issuance 
of final regulations and with respect to other providers, 
within two years after the issuance of final regulations.
    Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, DOT was required 
to issue regulations for over-the-road bus operators by July, 
1994. Under ADA, compliance with these regulations is stated as 
six years after enactment of that Act or by July 1996 for large 
bus operators and seven years after enactment, or by July 1997, 
for small bus operators. However, to date, DOT has not yet 
issued final regulations under ADA, and has no expected date 
for issuance, forcing over-the-road bus operators into a 
compliance burden with an unknown set of regulations. To avoid 
this perverse result, the Committee has amended the ADA to 
change compliance dates to two and three years after issuance 
of final regulations, for large and small over-the-road bus 
operators respectively.

Sec. 313. Alaska Railroad

    This section provides that the Alaska Railroad is eligible 
for certain fixed guideway modernization funds under section 
5337(a)(3)(B) of title 49.

Sec. 314. Alcohol and controlled substances testing

    The provisions of this section are identical to proposed 
legislation submitted by the Department of Transportation and 
included in H.R. 1827, introduced on June 13, 1995.
    Subsection (a) amends section 5331(b)(1)(A) of title 49 to 
repeal the preemployment alcohol testing requirement for 
certain transit workers. All other drug and alcohol testing 
requirements are retained.
    Subsection (b) amends section 20140(b)(1)(A) of title 49 to 
repeal the preemployment alcohol testing requirement for 
certain railroad employees. All other drug and alcohol testing 
requirements are retained.
    Subsection (c) amends section 31306(b)(1)(A) of title 49 to 
repeal the preemployment alcohol testing requirement for 
operators of commercial vehicles. All other drug and alcohol 
testing requirements are retained.
    Subsection (d) amends section 45102 of title 49 to repeal 
the preemployment alcohol testing requirement for certain 
employees of air carriers and the FAA. All other drug and 
alcohol testing requirements are retained.
    Nothing in this section is intended to limit the 
flexibility provided in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Regulations at section 382.303(e) which allows motor carriers 
to rely on post-accident drug or alcohol tests conducted by 
government officials and obtained by the employer as a way to 
meet the motor carriers' testing requirement.

Sec. 315. Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures

    Subsection (a) makes a technical amendment to Section 
410(d)(1)(E) of title 23.
    Subsection (b) amends section 410(d) to provide that a 
State shall be treated as having met the requirement of having 
a statewide program for roadside sobriety checkpoints if such a 
program would violate the constitution of the State and if the 
State meets certain outer safety requirements. The requirement 
that a State provide that any person under the age of 21 with a 
blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or greater when 
driving a motor vehicle shall be deemed to be driving while 
intoxicated is moved from the Supplemental Grants program to 
the Basic Grants program.
    Subsection (c) makes a conforming amendment to the 
Supplemental Grants program.

Sec. 316. Safety research initiatives

    Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to conduct a study and 
demonstration of technologies and practices to improve the 
driving performance of older drivers and special user groups. 
The Secretary shall implement these activities in those States 
which have the highest population of aging citizens for whom 
driving a motor vehicle is their primary mobility mode and 
shall enter into a cooperative agreement with an institution 
with demonstrated competencies in such areas.
    Subsection (b) directs the Secretary in carrying out the 
work zone safety program established in ISTEA to utilize a 
variety of methods to increase safety at highway construction 
sites, including conferences, the creation of a national 
information clearinghouse, and national promotional campaign 
and promotion of work site training.
    The Committee recommends that, pursuant to section 1051 of 
ISTEA, the Secretary shall implement activities to increase 
safety at highway construction sites, with emphasis on 
conferences to explore new techniques for increasing work zone 
safety, creation of a national clearinghouse for the 
dissemination of work zone safety information through 
electronic and other means, and a national promotional campaign 
in conjunction with state departments of transportation, other 
appropriate agencies and the private sector to encourage the 
provision of timely, site-specific information to motorists 
when construction workers are actually present.
    Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
develop and evaluate radio and microwave technology for a motor 
vehicle safety warning system in furtherance of safety in all 
types of motor vehicles.
    The Committee is aware of a radio and microwave-based 
motorist safety warning system under development by industry. 
The Secretary is directed to conduct a study of the application 
of this technology to provide warnings to motorists as they 
approach or encounter abnormal or unsafe roadway conditions 
caused by accidents, adverse weather and movement of emergency 
vehicles, at a minimum. The Committee expects the Secretary to 
enter a formal arrangement with a non-profit research and 
educational institution to perform the actual study. An 
appropriate institution would, at a minimum, already be 
performing related research and have a relationship with the 
appropriate industry. The Committee further expects the 
Secretary to report to Congress on the results of this study 
within two years from the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 317. Public transit vehicles exemption

    This section extends until the reauthorization of the 
Federal-aid highway and transit programs the temporary waiver 
included in the FY 1993 Department of Transportation 
Appropriations Act for overweight public transit busies 
travelling on the Interstate System.

Sec. 318. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program

    Subsection (a) amends section 149(b) of title 23 to freeze 
funding allocations under the Congestion Mitigation and Air 
Quality Program (CMAQ) at the fiscal year 1994 levels for the 
remaining years of ISTEA, and provides that CMAQ funds may be 
used for projects for the maintenance of air quality standards.
    Subsection (b) provides that certain funding equity 
provisions will not be affected by this section.
    The Committee has learned that fully half of the ozone 
nonattainment areas, which receive virtually all of the CMAQ 
funds, will redesignate as attainment areas before the end of 
ISTEA. Consequently, they will lose all of their CMAQ funding 
even though the EPA-FHWA clean air regulations (promulgated 
after the passage of ISTEA) will require them to continue 
making transportation expenditures specifically to maintain 
their clean air status.
    At the time of passage of ISTEA, the Committee did not 
anticipate half of the participants in the program losing all 
of their CMAQ funds and had no way of knowing the content of 
the EPA-FHWA regulations. Losing CMAQ funds will force these 
areas to continue to make sizable clean air expenditures 
without the targeted Federal assistance intended to help them 
in the first place--creating an unfunded Federal mandate. 
Rather than change the CMAQ funding formula in H.R. 2274, a 
complicated and possibly controversial process, the Committee 
simply froze the program's funding allocations until the entire 
CMAQ program is addressed when ISTEA is reauthorized.
    The Committee notes that the project to construct a bridge 
over the Cuyahoga River, Ohio, at the head of navigation is 
eligible for funding under the CMAQ program. In reviewing the 
project, the FHWA and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
should evaluate the modification of the Mobile 5.A air quality 
modeling data submitted by the Ohio Department of 
Transportation as evidence of the ability to reduce emissions 
of volatile organic compounds on a statewide basis, including 
the Greater Cleveland nonattainment area. The Committee also 
encourages CMAQ eligibility for the downtown Cleveland 
intermodal connection parking facility at the Great Lakes 
Science Center.

Sec. 319. Quality improvement

    Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to require the States 
to conduct an analysis of the life-cycle costs for projects on 
the National Highway System with an estimated total cost of $25 
million or more. Life cycle cost analysis is a process that 
protects transportation investment. The use of life cycle cost 
analysis on higher-cost Federal-aid NHS projects will reduce 
long-term costs and improve quality and performance. In order 
to achieve these goals, the Secretary should develop a uniform 
analysis period and uniform utilization of real discount rates 
as established in OMB Circular A-94 for all Federal-aid NHS 
projects with an estimated total cost of $25 million or more.
    Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to require the States 
to conduct value engineering analyses for projects on the 
National Highway System with an estimated total cost of $25 
million or more.

Sec. 320. Applicability of transportation conformity requirements

    Subsection (a) amends section 109(j) of title 23 to clarify 
that transportation conformity requirements only apply to areas 
that are designated as non-attainment under the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 and to areas that have been designated as 
attainment, but are still subject to maintenance requirements 
under the Clean Air Act.
    Subsection (b) makes similar clarifications to section 
176(c) of the Clean Air Act.

Sec. 321. Quality through competition

    This section amends section 112(b)(2) of title 23, relating 
to the letting of contracts and subcontracts funded in whole or 
in part with Federal funds under the Federal-aid highway 
program. The purposes of this section are to remove barriers to 
competition, promote use of state of the art technology, save 
taxpayers' money through reciprocity of pre-award audits, and 
expedite the award of contracts.
    The recipient of Federal funds must accept and use indirect 
cost rates established by a government agency in accordance 
with Federal Acquisition Regulations for one-year applicable 
accounting periods in estimating, negotiating, and 
administrating contracts. Recipients must notify affected firms 
before requesting or using the cost and rate data and must keep 
the information confidential.
    The provisions of this section will take effect two years 
after the date of enactment. A State, however, has the option 
of enacting legislation to adopt an alternative process to 
promote engineering and design quality and to ensure maximum 
competition by professional companies providing engineering and 
design services. Alternatives a State legislature could enact 
under the State option include:
          Require and/or set overhead ceilings, which in their 
        judgment promote engineering/design quality and maximum 
        competition for companies of all sizes.
          Require and/or set salary caps, which in their 
        judgment promote engineering/design quality and maximum 
        completion for companies of all sizes.
          Refuse to accept audits done by other States and 
        insist upon its own State auditors doing the work.

Sec. 322. Applicability of certain vehicle weight limitations in 
        Wisconsin

    This section amends section 127 of title 23 to exempt 
certain specialized vehicles operating on the 104-mile portion 
of Wisconsin State Route 78 and United States Route 51 from the 
vehicle weight limitations in section 127 upon the inclusion of 
the route as part of the Interstate System under section 139 of 
title 23.

Sec. 323. Treatment of Centennial Bridge, Rock Island, Illinois 
        agreement

    This section includes the Centennial Bridge in Rock Island, 
Illinois, under section 129, title 23, relating to toll 
agreements. The city may enter into a section 129 toll 
agreement with the FHWA to amend the terms of the toll 
agreements.

Sec. 324. Metric requirements and signs

    This section prohibits the Secretary from requiring the 
States to expend Federal or State funds to construct, erect, 
modify, or otherwise place any sign relating to any speed 
limit, distance, or other measurement to establish the use of 
the metric system on highway signs before September 30, 1997.

Sec. 325. ISTEA technical clarification

    This section amends subsection 131(s) of title 23 to 
clarify that the Federal ban on new billboards on scenic byways 
does not restrict the authority of a State with respect to 
commercial and industrial areas along a scenic byway or roads 
designated pursuant to section 1047 of ISTEA. The section 
reaffirms the ability of States to establish standards stricter 
than those in Federal law.
    The purpose of the ISTEA provision was to protect truly 
scenic areas. All discussion of this provision related to 
scenic values, and the understanding of Members during 
consideration of this provision was that it related solely to 
roads in scenic areas. The FHWA has interpreted this provision 
to override other provisions of the Highway Beautification Act 
that permit the erection of billboards in commercial and 
industrial areas. Under the FHWA interpretation, the ISTEA 
provision applies to commercial and industrial areas that may 
be designated as part of a scenic byway, for the purposes of 
connecting scenic areas.
    A State that has a scenic byway program will, in most 
cases, want to designate continuous scenic byway routes. That 
is, a scenic route that traverses mostly rural areas may pass 
through towns and cities. The advantages of continuous scenic 
byways and numerous, particularly concerning mapping and notice 
to motorists.
    What the FHWA interpretation means is that if a State 
designates a segment of road that runs through a commercial and 
industrial areas as part of a scenic byway for the purpose of 
connectivity, that segment of road would be subject to the new 
billboard prohibition--no matter how urban or blighted that 
commercial or industrial area might be, and even if the State 
does not want to change its billboard regulation in commercial 
and industrial areas.
    The Committee believes that the FHWA interpretation of 
section 131(s) is not the best reading of the section. The last 
sentence of section 131(s) reads as follows: ``Control of any 
sign, display, or device on such a highway shall be in 
accordance with this section'' (emphasis added). ``This 
section'' includes subsection (d), the commercial and 
industrial exemption. The Congress intended by this sentence 
that the scenic byway provisions would be subject to all the 
other provisions of the Highway Beautification Act.
    In addition, if the Congress had intended to override other 
long-standing provisions of the Act, it would have explicitly 
done so. A basic feature of the Beautification Act is to permit 
States to allow billboards to remain in industrial and 
commercial areas. Congress would not have relied on inference 
to make such a drastic change in the law. Indeed, the conferees 
on ISTEA never discussed the possibility of overturning the 
commercial and industrial exemption.
    The anomaly of the FHWA interpretation is that it preempts 
States in an area where they have never been preempted under 
the Highway Beautification Act. Under the Act, a State may ban 
new billboards anywhere in the State, including commercial and 
industrial zones. The State may also choose to continue the 
Federal commercial and industrial exemption. The FHWA 
interpretation tells the State that if it designates a 
continuous scenic byway, it may not--as a matter of Federal 
law--continue the commercial and industrial exemption even in 
the most blighted areas that may appear on that scenic byway.
    This interpretation has the perverse result of providing a 
disincentive to the designation of scenic byways. A State that 
wants to designate a continuous route, but does not want to 
change billboard regulation in commercial and industrial areas, 
is prevented from doing so.
    The interim FHWA guidance on the National Science Byways 
program issued in May of 1995 also flies in the face of the 
intent of the ISTEA conferees. In that guidance, FHWA states 
that any highway or road submitted for designation under the 
National Scenic Byways Program by State or Federal agencies 
should be designated as a State scenic byway. However, it also 
states that roads that meet all criteria and requirements for 
National designation but not State or Federal agencies' 
designation criteria may be considered for national designation 
on a case-by-case basis and that any road nominated for the 
National Scenic Byway or All-American Road designation will be 
considered to be a designated State scenic byway.
    The provision in Section 325 clarifies that FHWA does not 
have authority under either subsection(s) of 131 or Section 
1047 of ISTEA to engage in rulemaking or take other 
adminsitrative actions to prohibit or restrict the location of 
signs, displays or devices in areas along state or federally-
designated scenic byways in areas that the States have 
determined are appropriate for commercial development.
    Again, it is very important to emphasize that States have 
complete authority to enact stricter prohibitions on billboards 
than those in Federal law, as stated in Section 325. The 
purpose of the technical amendment in Section 325 of the bill 
is to ensure that the designation of a scenic byway does not, 
by itself, change billboard regulation in commercial and 
industrial areas. States should continue to have the discretion 
as to whether or not to ban billboards in commercial and 
industrial areas.

Sec. 326. Metropolitan planning for highway projects

    This section amends section 134(f) of title 23 to add 
recreational travel and tourism to the factors that must be 
considered by metropolitan planning organizations in developing 
transportation plans and programs.

Sec. 327. Non-Federal share for certain toll bridge projects

    This section amends section 144(l) of title 23 to allow 
non-Federal funds expended for the seismic retrofit of the 
Golden Gate Bridge described in section 144(l) to be credited 
towards the required non-Federal share for future federal-aid 
highway funds authorized for the seismic retrofit of the 
bridge.

Sec. 328. Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and 
        surveys

    This section amends section 409 of title 23 to clarify that 
data ``collected'' for safety reports or surveys shall not be 
subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in Federal or 
State court proceedings.
    This clarification is included in response to recent State 
court interpretations of the term ``data compiled'' in the 
current section 409 of title 23. It is intended that raw data 
collected prior to being made part of any formal or bound 
report shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into 
evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered 
for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any 
occurrence at a location mention or addressed in such data.

Sec. 329. National Recreational Trails Program

    This section amends section 1302 of ISTEA to make certain 
amendments to the National Recreational Trails Program, 
including a provision requiring States to provide 20 percent of 
the program costs in the sixth year of the program. This 
section also provides that a State shall give priority to 
projects which mitigate and minimize impacts to the 
environment. In addition, a State may apply to the Secretary 
for an exemption from requirements for distribution of federal 
trail program funds between motorized and nonmotorized users.
    The Committee is aware of the lack of Federal funding which 
has been provided to the National Recreational Trails Program. 
Although the program is authorized at up to $30 million 
annually, to date only $7.5 million has been appropriated in 
fiscal year 1993 for the program. This obviously has had a 
negative effect on the program and the full benefits of the 
trails program have not been realized. This program will be 
reviewed when ISTEA is reauthorized to correct this inadequate 
funding.

Sec. 330. Identification of high priority corridors

    Subsection (a) amends the routing of certain existing high 
priority corridors and adds five additional high priority 
corridors.
    Subsection (b) requires the Secretary of Transportation to 
designate certain of these routes as future Interstate routes, 
if they are not already designated, when the Secretary 
determines the routes meet Interstate standards and connect to 
the existing Interstate system.
    The Committee has included a provision which designates two 
entire Congressional High Priority Corridors and segments of a 
third Congressional High Priority Corridor as future Interstate 
highways. This designation is made apart from the existing 
provision from designating routes as part of the Interstate 
system pursuant to section 139 of title 23.
    This provision directs that the I-69, I-73/74 and U.S. 220 
high priority corridors be designated as future parts of the 
Interstate System. The Committee directs that all routes along 
these corridors be able to carry signs indicating that these 
are ``Future'' Interstate segments, with the appropriate 
Interstate shield below. The bill directs that these ``future'' 
segments shall be designated as actual Interstate system 
segments when (i) they are built to Interstate standards, and 
(ii) connect to an existing Interstate segment and functions as 
a safe and usable segment.
    The Committee believes that two segments on these corridors 
should be designated as current segments on the Interstate 
system. The segment of the U.S. 220 corridor from Bedford to 
Bald Eagle, Pennsylvania is built to Interstate standards, and 
will connect to existing Interstate segments, and functions as 
a safe and usable segment. The Committee also believes that 
U.S. 59 segment through Houston is built to Interstate 
standards, connects to two existing Interstate segments, and is 
the type of segment that would constitute a safe and usable 
segment.

Sec. 331. High priority corridor feasibility studies

    Subsection (a) provides for a feasibility study to be 
conducted to identify routes that will expedite future 
emergency evacuations of coastal areas of Louisiana.
    Subsection (b) directs the Secretary, in cooperation with 
the States of Virginia and West Virginia, to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of establishing a route for the East-
West Transamerica Corridor in West Virginia and Virginia.

Sec. 332. High cost bridge projects

    This section provides technical amendments to two projects 
under the high cost bridge project program.

Sec. 333. Congestion relief projects

    This section provides a series of technical amendments to 
projects under the congestion relief project program.

Sec. 334. High priority corridors on National Highway System

    This section clarifies the route of the East-West 
Transamerica High Priority Corridor. The Committee has directed 
a general route for the I-66 Transamerica Congressional High 
Priority Corridor through the Mississippi Valley and Missouri 
into Kansas.
    Westward from Paducah, Kentucky, the Committee directs the 
route to pass through Massac, Pulaski and Alexander Counties, 
Illinois and into Southern Missouri utilizing U.S. 60 in 
Missouri wherever feasible.
    In the event that inordinate delays occur, as determined by 
DOT in designating and confirming a definite route across 
Southern Illinois, the Committee directs DOT to proceed with 
the consideration of the most feasible alternative routes 
available.

Sec. 335. High priority corridor projects

    This section provides technical amendments to two projects 
under the Congressional High Priority Corridor project program.
    The funds made available for the Keller Memorial Bridge are 
contingent upon approval of the project by federal and state 
agencies with jurisdictional responsibilities for the Tennessee 
River and by a freight rail carrier that owns and operates a 
track under the spans of the bridge.

Sec. 336. Rural access projects

    This section provides a series of technical amendments to 
projects under the rural access project program. Funds made 
available for 4.8 miles of Prater and Pete Manina Roads, in 
West Calcasieu, Louisiana are available for, at a minimum, 
widening, drainage improvements, and reconstruction.

Sec. 337. Urban access and mobility projects

    This section provides a series of technical amendments to 
projects under the urban access and mobility project program.

Sec. 338. Innovative projects

    This section provides a series of technical amendments to 
projects under the innovative project program. The funds made 
available for the purchase of vehicles in the project described 
in item number 6 of this section, relating to Suffolk County, 
New York, may be utilized by the Suffolk County Chapter of the 
Association for the Handicapped and Mentally Retarded Children.

Sec. 339. Intermodal projects

    This section makes a technical amendment to a project under 
the intermodal project program.

Sec. 340. Miscellaneous revisions to Surface Transportation and Uniform 
        Relocation Assistance Act of 1987

    This section makes a technical amendment to a rural access 
project and technical amendments to certain projects included 
in the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance 
Act of 1987.

Sec. 341. Eligibility

    Subsection (a) amends section 108(b) of the Surface 
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 to 
make the High Street to Causeway Street section of the Central 
Artery project eligible for Interstate Construction funds. No 
additional funding is authorized.
    Subsection (b) makes certain revisions to the Interstate 95 
and Pennsylvania Turnpike project authorized by section 162 of 
the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982.
    Subsection (c) prohibits the use of Federal funds to 
construct Type II noise barriers, other than for projects 
already approved.
    The Committee has included a provision which bars the use 
of Federal funds to construct Type II noise barriers. Type II 
noise barriers are those constructed on existing roads that are 
not being installed in conjunction with or as part of a project 
to increase capacity on that segment. The Committee is 
concerned that scare Federal funds are being used to retrofit 
existing roads to mitigate noise when existing, unmet highway 
and bridge needs exceed $212 billion. The Committee is most 
concerned about situations where noise barriers are installed 
on highways that are not being expanded, and the residential 
development adjacent to the right-of-way occurred after the 
construction of the highway. This situation is even more 
glaring in light of the cut in fiscal year 1996 funding due to 
section 1003.
    The Committee has therefore barred further Federal funds 
from being used to construct Type II noise barriers. The 
Committee does not intend to interrupt any ongoing, approved 
projects to construct Type II noise barriers. The Committee 
also does not intend to prevent States from constructing Type 
II noise barriers with State funds. This provision is not 
intended to affect in any way existing law and regulations 
regarding Type I noise barriers.
    The Committee further directs the Department of 
Transportation to develop stricter guidelines for the approval 
of Type II noise barriers so that Federal funds could only be 
used to remediate noise for areas adjacent to the right-of-way 
where residential development occurred before the construction 
of the highway.

Sec. 342. Orange County, California, toll roads

    This section allows the Secretary to enter into an 
agreement modifying existing agreements that provide Orange 
County, California with contingent lines-of-credit. This 
provision also allows the Secretary to require an interest rate 
that is higher than the rate specified in previous Acts.

Sec. 343. Miscellaneous studies

    Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to conduct a study on 
the adequacy of and the need for improvements to the Pan 
American Highway. The Secretary is directed to submit a report 
to Congress on the results of the study within two years.
    Subsection (b) directs the Secretary of Transportation to 
conduct a study to determine the cost, need, and efficacy of 
establishing a highway sign for identifying routs on the 
National Highway System.
    Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to conduct a study on 
compliance with the provisions of the Buy American Act with 
respect to contracts entered into using amounts made available 
for the Highway Trust Fund.

Sec. 344. Collection of bridge tolls

    This section provides that tolls collected for motor 
vehicles on any bridge connecting the boroughs of Brooklyn, New 
York, and Staten Island, New York, shall continue to be 
collected for only those vehicles exiting from such bridge in 
Staten Island.

Sec. 345. National Driver Register

    This section authorizes $2,550,000 for each of fiscal years 
1995 and 1996 for the National Driver Register.

Sec. 346. Roadside barrier technology

    This section amends Section 1058 of ISTEA by modifying the 
definition of innovative safety barriers.

Sec. 347. Motorist call boxes

    This section amends Section 131(c) of Title 23 to allow 
signs, displays, and devices identifying and announcing free 
motorists aid call boxes and their sponsorship by corporations 
or other organizations in areas adjacent to the Interstate 
State System and the primary system.

Sec. 348. Repeal of the National Maximum Speed Limit Compliance Program

    This section repeals the national maximum speed limit and 
all related enforcement requirements.

Sec. 349. Elimination of penalty for noncompliance for motorcycle 
        helmets

    This section amends section 153(h) of title 23 by repealing 
the penalty States face if they do not have a universal 
motorcycle helmet law.

Sec. 350. Safety rest areas

    This section amends section 120(c) of title 23 by adding 
safety rest areas to the list of safety projects that qualify 
for 100% Federal funding.

Sec. 351. Exemptions from requirements relating to commercial motor 
        vehicles and their operators

    This section sets out a series of exemptions from 
burdensome Federal regulations for certain, specified motor 
carrier operations where there is a time-sensitive need for an 
exemption or where driving is incidental to the driver's 
overall duties. The exemptions shall only take effect after 180 
days. The Secretary is also given authority to conduct a 
rulemaking to determine whether granting any of these 
exemptions (or part of any exemption) is (i) not in the public 
interest and (ii) would have a significant adverse impact on 
the safety of commercial motor vehicles.
    Subsection (a) directs that waivers be granted from certain 
Federal motor carrier regulations. Subsection (a)(1) grants an 
exemption from the Federal hours of service regulations for 
drivers transporting agricultural supplies or farm supplies 
during planting and harvesting seasons operating within a 50-
air mile radius of the source of the commodities or the 
distribution point of the supplies. This exemption is intended 
to operate in a similar manner as the exemption granted 40 
years ago for small package deliverers during the Holiday 
season in December. This exemption is limited to the planting 
and harvesting seasons. The Governor of each State is directed 
to determine the planting and harvesting season for his State. 
The Committee recognizes the long hours and extenuating 
circumstances facing farmers during the planting and harvesting 
seasons to complete work.
    Subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) modify the hours of service 
regulations for drivers who primarily transport water well 
drilling rigs and for drivers used primarily in the 
transportation of construction equipment and materials. These 
exemptions are identical to those granted for oil field 
drillers in 1962. These subsections permit the ``clock'' used 
to calculate a driver's hours of service time back to 0 after 
taking 24 hours off. Water well drilling and construction are 
both seasonal activities where the drivers spend long periods 
of time waiting or performing tasks unrelated to driving. These 
provisions maintain current maximum on-duty time and driving 
time regulations, but only affect when the driver's ``clock'' 
is reset. The Committee intends that this exemption apply to 
operators who operate six or seven days per week.
    Subsection (a)(4) permits a State to grant a limited 
exemption for employees of towns and townships smaller than 
3,000 persons to temporarily operate a snowplow when the 
regular driver who has a commercial driver's license is 
unavailable or additional vehicles are needed due to a snow 
emergency.
    Subsection (a)(5) directs the Secretary not to enforce 
Federal motor carrier statutes and regulations that apply to 
vehicles between 10,000 and 26,000 pounds. This section 
maintains all statutory definitions of commercial motor 
vehicles at 10,000 pounds, where applicable. The Committee does 
not intend to eliminate DOT jurisdiction with respect to 
vehicles weighing between 10,000 and 26,000, but instead to 
curtail the regulations applying to trucks in that weight 
class.
    The Committee specifically recognizes that the sole 
responsibility for all safety regulation regarding commercial 
motor vehicles as set forth in Subtitle VI of title 49 (and all 
regulations promulgated thereunder) shall continue to reside 
with the Secretary of Transportation, and not with any other 
Federal agency, including the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration. Furthermore, it is not the intent of this 
legislation, nor shall it be construed as vesting in any 
Federal agency other than DOT jurisdiction to exercise, 
prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting 
commercial motor vehicle safety currently subject to regulation 
by DOT under Subtitle VI of title 49 and all regulations issued 
thereunder.
    Subsection (b) sets the effective date for the exemptions 
contained in (a) at 180 days from the date of enactment.
    Subsection (c) provides that the Secretary may conduct a 
rulemaking to determine whether any of the exemptions contained 
in subsection (a) is not in the public interest and would have 
a significant adverse impact on the safety of commercial motor 
vehicles. The Secretary is given the authority to not permit 
any exemption granted in subsection (a) to go into effect, or 
to modify or revoke any exemption granted in subsection (a).
    The Committee intends that this provision maintains DOT's 
authority to regulate motor carrier safety in these areas. The 
provision specifically vests the Secretary with the power to 
modify, revoke or suspend any exemption. The Committee does not 
intend for the exemptions granted in subsection (a) to in any 
way modify or alter the exclusive authority of the Secretary to 
act in Subtitle VI of title 49.
    This section is intended to vest authority with the 
Secretary to determine whether to revoke any of the exemptions 
granted in this section. The 180 day effective date is intended 
to give the Secretary time to conduct a rulemaking. This 
authority vested in the Secretary ensures that none of these 
waivers will have a significant adverse impact on safety.
    The standard set in this section is a modification of the 
general standard to be applied by the Secretary in determining 
whether to grant administrative waivers set in section 31136 of 
Title 49. That standard mandates that a waiver from any motor 
carrier safety regulation may only be granted if such waiver 
``is in the public interest and consistent with the safe 
operation of commercial motor vehicles.'' The Committee is 
aware that the Secretary and the Courts have interpreted this 
standard to mean that applicants for waivers must demonstrate 
in advance that the waiver sought would pose no diminution of 
safety. This places an unreasonable burden on waiver 
applicants, since they must present evidence that the waiver 
being sought would not diminish safety, but since the applicant 
cannot operate in the manner being sought in the waiver, it is 
impossible to compile such evidence. The Committee has been 
informed that since the DOT waiver standard was adopted in 
1984, not a single administrative waiver has been granted.
    Subsection (d) contains a series of definitions. The 
Committee intends that the definition of term ``consideration 
of finished related products'' includes asphalt and concrete, 
and that the term ``construction personnel and construction 
equipment'' includes construction maintenance vehicles.

Sec. 352. Traffic control signs

    This section provides that traffic control signs referred 
to under the experimental project conducted in the State of 
Oregon in December 1991 shall be deemed to comply with the 
requirements of section 2B-4 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices of the Department of Transportation. Section 
2B-4 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 
prohibits secondary messages to be used on STOP sign faces.
    This section provides an exception to the MUTCD to permit 
the State of Oregon to continue to post Right Turn Permitted 
Without Stopping (RTPWOS) signs at certain intersections where 
it is deemed to be safe and an aid to speeding the flow of 
traffic. Oregon has been using the RTPWOS signs since the 
1950's and two State studies (in 1985 and 1991) have shown no 
increase in accidents with RTPWOS signs, and in some cases, 
have shown a decrease in traffic accidents. The Committee 
believes that these signs, as currently used by the State of 
Oregon are not confusing and therefore Oregon should be able to 
continue to use these signs.

Sec. 353. Brightman Street Bridge, Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts

    This section provides that Brightman Street Bridge in Fall 
River Harbor, Massachusetts, may be reconstructed to result in 
a clear channel width of less than 300 feet.

                  title iv--the truth in budgeting act

Section 401. Short title

    Provides that the title may be cited as the ``Truth in 
Budgeting Act.''

Section 402. Budgetary treatment of Highway, Airport and Airway, Inland 
        Waterways, and Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds

    This language tracks the language used to take the Social 
Security Trust Funds off-budget in Section 13301 of the Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1990. Specifically, the language provides 
that all receipts and disbursements of the Highway, Aviation, 
Inland Waterways, and Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds shall not 
be included in: (1) the budget of the United States Government 
as submitted by the President, or (2) the congressional budget 
(including allocations of budget authority and outlays provided 
therein). Additionally, the receipts and disbursements are 
exempted from any general budget limitations imposed by statute 
from sequestration under Gramm-Rudman.
    The effect of this language is to remove the trust funds 
from: (1) calculations of the on-budget deficit, (2) 
congressional budget resolutions, including spending 
allocations provided to committees, and (3) spending points of 
order under the Budget Act.

Section 403. Safeguards against deficit spending out of Airport and 
        Airway Trust Fund

    This section duplicates for the Aviation Trust Fund the 
automatic spending safeguards provided by the Byrd Rule in the 
Highway Trust Fund. Specifically, if the Secretary of 
Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
Treasury, determines that fund balances and expected receipts 
do not cover unfunded aviation authorizations, those 
authorizations are reduced on a pro-rata basis to cover the 
shortfall.
    While spending safeguards are already built into this trust 
fund, this provision provides the absolute assurance of a Byrd 
Rule process to ensure that the trust fund is deficit proof and 
operates on a pay as you go basis. (Note: the Byrd Rule as it 
applies to the Highway Trust Fund is named after former Senator 
Harry Byrd of Virginia and is not the same Byrd Rule in the 
Senate relating to extraneous matters in reconciliation 
legislation.)

Section 404. Safeguards against deficit spending out of the Inland 
        Waterways Trust Fund and Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund

    This section mirrors Section 403, excepts that is applies 
to the inland Waterways and Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds and 
has the Secretary of the Army consult with the Secretary of the 
Treasury.

Section 405. Applicability

    Provides that this Act becomes effective beginning with the 
1996 fiscal year.

                    Hearings and Legislative History

    The Subcommittee on Surface Transportation held a series of 
six hearings on the designation of the National Highway System 
and ancillary issues in 1995. Hearings were held on February 8, 
28, and March 1, 1995 regarding burdens, mandates and 
inefficiencies in the surface transportation programs. On March 
2 and 8, 1995, the Subcommittee held hearings on the 
designation of the National Highway System. On March 10, 1995, 
the Subcommittee held a hearing on the Truth in Budgeting Act.
    H.R. 2274 was introduced on September 7, 1995. On September 
7, 1995 the Subcommittee reported the bill, with amendments, to 
the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. On 
September 8, 1995, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure ordered the bill reported, with amendments, by 
voice vote. There were 5 full Committee roll call votes:

            1. YOUNG AMENDMENT TO REPEAL HELMET LAW (38-17)

     This amendment amends section 153(h) of title 23 by 
repealing the penalty States face if they do not have a 
universal motorcycle helmet law.
        AYE                           NAY
Barcia                              Bachus
Bateman                             Boehlert
Blute                               Borski
Brewster                            Clyburn
Clement                             Collins
Clinger                             Ehlers
Coble                               Horn
Costello                            Johnson
Cramer                              McCarthy
Danner                              Mineta
DeFazio                             Molinari
Duncan                              Nadler
Emerson                             Oberstar
Ewing                               Parker
Filner                              Rahall
Fowler                              Wise
Franks                              Shuster
Gilchrest
Hutchinson
Kelly
Kim
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lipinski
Martini
Mascara
Menendez
Mica
Petri
Poshard
Quinn
Seastrand
Tate
Traficant
Weller
Young
Zeliff

                     2. MINETA SPEED LIMIT (19-37)

    This amendment would strike a provision to repeal the 
national maximum speed limit.
        AYE                           NAY
Boehlert                            Bachus
Brown                               Baker
Clinger                             Barcia
Clyburn                             Bateman
Ehlers                              Blute
Fowler                              Brewster
Gilchrest                           Clement
LaTourette                          Coble
Lipinski                            Collins
Menendez                            Costello
Mineta                              Cramer
Molinari                            Danner
Nadler                              DeFazio
Oberstar                            Duncan
Parker                              Emerson
Rahall                              Filner
Traficant                           Franks
Wise                                Horn
Shuster                             Hutchinson
                                    Johnson
                                    Kelly
                                    Kim
                                    LaHood
                                    Latham
                                    McCarthy
                                    Martini
                                    Mascara
                                    Mica
                                    Petri
                                    Poshard
                                    Quinn
                                    Seastrand
                                    Tate
                                    Wamp
                                    Weller
                                    Young
                                    Zeliff

                  3. RAHALL 65 MPH SPEED LIMIT (22-29)

    This amendment sought to establish a new maximum speed 
limit of 65 MPH.
        AYE                           NAY
Borski                              Bachus
Brown                               Baker
Clinger                             Bateman
Collins                             Blute
Costello                            Brewster
Ehlers                              Clement
Fowler                              Coble
Gilchrest                           Cramer
Johnson                             Danner
LaTourette                          DeFazio
Lipinski                            Emerson
McCarthy                            Filner
Martini                             Franks
Menendez                            Horn
Mineta                              Hutchinson
Molinari                            Kelly
Nadler                              Kim
Oberstar                            LaHood
Parker                              Latham
Poshard                             Mascara
Rahall                              Mica
Shuster                             Petri
                                    Quinn
                                    Seastrand
                                    Tate
                                    Wamp
                                    Weller
                                    Young
                                    Zeliff

               4. RAHALL REPEAL TRIGGER PROVISION (21-34)

    This amendment would strike section 102 and section 103 of 
H.R. 2274 which sequester highway and transit funds for fiscal 
year 1997.
        AYE                           NAY
Borski                              Bachus
Brown                               Baker
Clement                             Bateman
Clyburn                             Blute
Collins                             Boehlert
Costello                            Brewster
Cramer                              Clinger
Danner                              Coble
DeFazio                             Duncan
Filner                              Ehlers
Johnson                             Emerson
Lipinski                            Ewing
McCarthy                            Fowler
Mascara                             Franks
Menendez                            Gilchrest
Mineta                              Horn
Nadler                              Hutchinson
Norton                              Kelly
Oberstar                            Kim
Poshard                             LaHood
Rahall                              Latham
                                    LaTourette
                                    Martini
                                    Mica
                                    Molinari
                                    Parker
                                    Petri
                                    Quinn
                                    Tate
                                    Wamp
                                    Weller
                                    Young
                                    Zeliff
                                    Shuster

        5. EMERSON EXEMPTIONS COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES (36-14)

    This amendment provides a series of exemptions from 
burdensome Federal regulations for certain, specified motor 
carrier operations where there is a time-sensitive need for an 
exemption or where driving is incidental to the driver's 
overall duties.
        AYE                           NAY
Bachus                              Borski
Baker                               Brown
Bateman                             DeFazio
Blute                               Filner
Boehlert                            Johnson
Clement                             Lipinski
Clinger                             McCarthy
Clyburn                             Mascara
Coble                               Menendez
Cramer                              Mineta
Danner                              Nadler
Duncan                              Norton
Ehlers                              Oberstar
Emerson                             Rahall
Ewing
Fowler
Franks
Gilchrest
Horn
Kelly
Kim
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Martini
Molinari
Petri
Poshard
Quinn
Seastrand
Tate
Wamp
Weller
Young
Zeliff
Shuster

            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3)(A) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in this report.

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that the 
enactment of H.R. 2274 will have no significant inflationary 
impact on prices and costs in the operation of the national 
economy.

                        Costs of the Legislation

    Clause 7 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the 
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is 
included in this report.

                     Compliance With House Rule XI

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee references the report of the Congressional Budget 
Office included below.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and 
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 2274.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 403 of the Congressional budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 
2274 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 14, 1995.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman, The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2274, the National 
Highway System Designation Act of 1995.
    Because enacting H.R. 2274 would affect direct spending and 
receipts, pay-as-you-go proEdures would apply to the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                      James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
    Enclosure.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    1. Bill Number: H.R. 2274.
    2. Bill Title: National Highway System Designation Act of 
1995.
    3. Bill Status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure on September 8, 1995.
    4. Bill Purpose: The bill would designate the National 
Highway System and establish procedures for modifying the 
system. In addition, the bill would:
          Withhold 1997 highway, highway safety, and transit 
        funds from apportionment or allocation until August 1, 
        1997; funds that are for administrative tasks or are 
        exempt from the obligation limitation for the Federal-
        Aid Highways program would not be withheld;
          Provide $360 million and $155 million of contract 
        authority for highway programs in fiscal years 1996 and 
        1997, respectively;
          Rescind $230 million of unobligated funds for highway 
        projects in fiscal year 1996 and reduce contract 
        authority for high-speed rail and highway safety 
        programs by $91 million and $155 million in fiscal 
        years 1996 and 1997, respectively;
          Grant states the flexibility to use certain 
        unobligated highway funds for types of projects 
        different than those for which they were originally 
        provided;
          Fund the minimum allocation program at $1.1 billion 
        and $1.3 billion in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, 
        respectively, rather than at the levels dictated by the 
        minimum allocation formula;
          Change the description or scope of various highway 
        demonstration projects;
          Change the scope of some transit projects authorized 
        to receive transit funds;
          Exempt certain categories of drivers and commercial 
        motor vehicles from some regulations;
          Require the Secretary of Transportation to carry out 
        various studies and rulemaking proceedings and issue 
        reports and regulations; and
          Make numerous other changes to highway and transit 
        programs.
    Finally, the bill would take the Highway, Airport and 
Airway, Harbor Maintenance, and Inland Waterway Trust Funds 
off-budget and would exempt trust fund spending from various 
budget enforcement procedures.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: By changing 
the funding for transportation programs, particularly the 
minimum allocation program, H.R. 2274 would result in an 
estimated increase in contract authority of $3.2 billion over 
the next five years. Contract authority is a form of mandatory 
spending and is attributable to the authorizing legislation 
that creates it. In general, outlays resulting from contract 
authority depend on obligation limitations established in 
transportation appropriations acts. Therefore, under the 
scoring procedures that have been in effect in the House of 
Representatives, these outlays are shown as discretionary. CBO 
estimates that the provisions of H.R. 2274, if followed by 
corresponding appropriations actions, would result in a net 
reduction in outlays of $1 million over the 1996-2000 period.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1996      1997      1998      1999      2000  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Direct spending                                                                         
                                                                                                                
Estimated Changes in Budget Authority:                                                                          
    New Highway Contract Authority............................       360       155       160       166       172
    Rescission of Highway Funds...............................      -230         0         0         0         0
    Reduction in Contract Authority...........................       -91      -155      -160      -166      -172
    Minimum Allocation........................................         0       780       780       780       780
    Equity Accounts...........................................     (\1\)     (\1\)     (\1\)     (\1\)     (\1\)
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total...................................................        39       780       780       780       780
                                                               =================================================
                                                                                                                
                    Discretionary spending                                                                      
                                                                                                                
Estimated Changes in Outlays:                                                                                   
    New Highway Contract Authority............................        60       189       163       172       160
    Rescission of Highway Funds...............................       -32      -113       -37       -12        -8
    Reduction in Contract Authority...........................       -36       -89      -146      -167      -167
    Minimum Allocation........................................         0        88       391       570       655
    Equity Accounts...........................................     (\1\)     (\1\)     (\1\)     (\1\)     (\1\)
    Withholding of 1997 Funds.................................         0    -3,463    -7,204     6,587     2,428
    Studies, Regulations, Rulemaking Proceedings..............         6         1         0         0         0
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total \2\...............................................        -2    -3,387    -6,833     7,153     3,068
                                                               =================================================
                                                                                                                
                           Receipts                                                                             
                                                                                                                
Estimated Changes in Receipts from Civil Penalties............         0        -1        -1        -1        -1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These estimates are not yet available.                                                                      
\2\ Totals do not include estimated changes in equity accounts, which are not yet available.                    

    The costs of this bill fall within budget function 400.
    New Contract Authority. H.R. 2774 would provide new 
contract authority of $360 million for 1996 and $155 million 
for 1997 for highway programs. In addition, if this provision 
were enacted, CBO's baseline for the Federal-Aid Highways 
program would be increased for fiscal years 1998-2000 to 
reflect the additional 1997 funding. (This extension beyond 
1997 reflects the requirement in the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 that, in preparing budget 
baseline, mandatory programs with current year outlays greater 
than $50 million shall be assumed to continue, even if they 
would expire under current law.) If the appropriations 
committees increase the obligation limitation for the Federal-
Aid Highways program over the next five years by corrponding 
amounts, outlays will increase by $744 million over the 1996-
2000 period. Any such outlay increase would depend on 
appropriation action.
    Rescission of Highway Funds.--The rescissions would reduce 
contract authority by $230 million in 1996. We expect that $9 
million of the $230 million will not be spent under current law 
because they come from highway demonstration projects that are 
not viable. Therefore, rescinding the $9 million would not 
result in any outlay savings. The remaining $221 million is 
subject to obligation limitations established in appropriations 
acts. If these funds would have been obligated in 1996, the 
rescission of the $221 million would reduce outlays by $202 
million over the next five years.
    Reduction in Contract Authority.--H.R. 2274 would reduce 
contract authority for high-speed rail and highway safety 
programs by $91 million and $155 million in fiscal years 1996 
and 1997, respectively. In addition, if this provision were 
enacted, CBO's baseline for these programs would be reduced for 
fiscal years 1998-2000 to reflect the decreasing funding. If 
the appropriations committees decrease the obligation 
limitation for these programs over the next five years by 
corresponding amounts, outlays will decrease by $602 million.
    Minimum Allocation.--The bill would find the minimum 
allocation program at $1.1 billion and $1.4 billion, 
respectively, in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, rather than at the 
levels dictated by the minimum allocation formula. CBO 
currently estimates that the minimum allocation formula would 
result in funding of $527 million in 1996 and $598 million in 
1997. Therefore, relative to our current estimates, H.R. 2274 
would provide an additional $1.4 billion of contract authority 
over these two years. In addition, in fiscal year 1998 through 
2000, CBO's baseline for this program would be increased to 
reflect the additional funding.
    The budget resolution baseline for 1996 is $1.1 billion, 
reflecting the higher levels of spending experienced in 
previous years. For 1996 scorekeeping purposes, the changes 
made by this bill are measured against that baseline figure. 
Thus, relative to the baseline, this would not increase funding 
for the minimum allocation program in 1996. The above table 
therefore includes additional costs for this program only for 
fiscal years 1997-2000.
    Equity Accounts.--Increasing funding for the minimum 
allocation program would change the amount of contract 
authority provided by three of the equity accounts in the 
Federal-Aid Highways program--hold harmless, donor state bonus, 
and 90 percent adjustment. These accounts guarantee that the 
states receive a fair share of highway funds. If the core 
programs do not provide enough funding to meet the thresholds 
established by these accounts, the equity accounts make up the 
difference. The Federal Highway Administration is calculating 
the effect the minimum allocation provision will have on these 
accounts, and we will provide this information to the committee 
as soon as it becomes available
    Receipts.--The bill would exempt certain categories of 
drivers of commercial motor vehicles from the hours of service 
requirements and would exempt commercial motor vehicles that 
weigh less than 26,000 pounds from numerous regulations. As a 
result, CBO estimates that civil penalties collected for 
violations of these regulations would drop by $1 million 
annually. The Office of Motor Carrier Safety at the Federal 
Highway Administration collects about $9 million in civil 
penalties a year, and commercial motor vehicles that weigh less 
than 26,000 pounds account for about 40 percent of the trucks 
on the road. However, the loss of receipts would be relatively 
small because the Secretary of Transportation would have the 
authority to stop an exemption if it would have an adverse 
impact on safety. In addition, the Department of Transportation 
may shift some of its enforcement resources to large trucks 
once smaller trucks are exempted.
    Withholding 1997 Funding.--H.R. 2274 would withhold from 
apportionment or allocation most of the 1997 funding for 
highway, safety, and transit programs until August 1, 1997. The 
provision would not apply to funds for administrative tasks and 
for programs that are exempt from the obligation limitation for 
the Federal-Aid Highways program, except that funds for the 
applied research program--which is exempt from the obligation 
limitation--would be withheld. This delay would prevent about 
$23.2 billion of 1997 funds from being obligated until August 
1, 1997, and would shift outlays of about $10.7 billion from 
1997 and 1998 to later fiscal years.
    The bill would prevent any transit funds appropriated after 
this bill is enacted from being obligated until August 1, 1997. 
If H.R. 2274 is enacted before the 1996 appropriations bill, 
1996 transit funds also will not be available for obligation 
until August 1, 1997, unless the appropriations bill overrides 
this provision.
    Studies, Regulations, and Rulemaking Proceedings.--This 
bill would require the Secretary of Transportation to carry out 
various studies and rulemaking proceedings and issue reports 
and regulations. These administrative tasks would cost several 
million dollars over the next five years. Most of these funds 
would come from contract authority already provided in law; 
however, the obligation limitations for the Federal-Aid 
Highways program might have to be increased, or else these 
tasks would have to be carried out by diverting resources from 
other tasks. The largest cost would be associated with the 
rulemaking proceedings that the Secretary of Transportation 
would have to carry out regarding commercial motor vehicle 
regulatory exemptions.
    Trust Fund Off-Budget.--This bill would take the Highway, 
Airport and Airway, Harbor Maintenance, and inland Waterways 
Trust Funds off-budget and may exempt trust fund spending from 
the discretionary spending caps, pay-as-you-go procedures and 
other Congressional budget controls (including the Budget 
Resolution, 602 allocations, and reconciliation instructions). 
However, it is unclear whether the bill actually exempts the 
spending from these budgetary enforcement procedures. Even 
though the language that makes Social Security off-budget is 
much more specific than the provisions in H.R. 2274, the 
administrative expenses of the Social Security Administration 
are still subject to all these procedures.
    By itself, taking programs off-budget does not change total 
spending of the federal government and does not affect spending 
or revenue estimates for Congressional scorekeeping purposes. 
However, if the provision does exempt trust fund spending from 
the budgetary control and enforcement procedures that apply to 
most other programs, transportation spending could increase 
significantly. The likelihood and amount of such increase are 
very uncertain because they would depend upon future actions by 
both authorizing and appropriations committees. Competing 
factors would come into play. On the one hand, the Congress 
would be free to spend more money because the current budgetary 
controls would no longer apply. On the other hand, the Congress 
plans on balancing the overall federal budget by 2002, and 
spending for these programs would still count in determining 
whether the budget is balanced.
    Currently, the amount of unobligated contract authority for 
transportation programs subject to an obligation limitation 
totals $10.4 billion. In the years after 1996, the balance 
would grow under CBO's baseline assumptions. The Congress could 
decide to make these balances available for obligation. In 
addition, it could choose to increase funding for the Federal 
Aviation Administration in order to modernize the air traffic 
control system. Even if the Congress limits trust fund spending 
to the amounts of income to the funds, spending could increase 
substantially over the 1995 level.
    In addition, the bill would establish rules similar to the 
Highway Trust Fund's Byrd rule for the Airport and Airway, 
Harbor Maintenance, and Inland Waterways Trust Funds. The Byrd 
rule tries to preserve the solvency of the highway account of 
the Highway Trust Fund by comparing unexpended budget authority 
to the fund's cash balance and two years of future revenue. If 
the unexpended budget authority is greater than the cash 
balance and revenue, the budget authority is reduced. The rules 
established in H.R. 2274 compares authorizations of 
appropriations that have not been appropriated--rather than 
budget authority--to the fund's unobligated cash balance and 
one year of revenue. If the test is not passed, the 
authorizations of appropriations would be reduced. The rule is 
ineffective in preserving a trust fund's solvency because, 
unlike the special rules for authorizations for the Highway 
Trust Fund, an authorization of appropriations is not budget 
authority but only a stamp of approval for a program to receive 
budget authority in the future.
    6. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets 
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
spending or receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that enactment 
of H.R. 2274 would increase contract authority and decrease 
civil penalties. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would 
apply to the bill. Even though contract authority would 
increase, direct spending would not because the outlays are 
categorized as discretionary. The following table summarizes 
the estimated pay-as-you-go impact of this bill.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               1995   1996   1997   1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays...........................  (\1\)  (\1\)  (\1\)  (\1\)
Change in receipts..........................      0      0     -1     -1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable.                                                     

    7. Estimated cost to State and local governments: CBO 
estimates that the provisions in H.R. 2274 affecting state and 
local government budgets would, taken together, result in a net 
savings to those entities.
    Enactment of H.R. 2274 would save state and local 
governments money by extending the temporary waiver for 
overweight transit buses traveling on the Interstate System and 
by eliminating requirements that paving materials contain 
recycled rubber. The bill would also relieve states of the 
requirement to implement management systems in the coming 
fiscal year and remove the possibility that states would have 
to convert highway signs to metric units before fiscal year 
1998. While CBO has not completed an analysis of all of those 
provisions, the Federal Highway Administration estimates that 
states, in total, would save an average of $400 million 
annually in paving costs by not having to comply with the 
recycled rubber requirements. In addition, based on a General 
Accounting Office estimate, delaying the metric sign 
requirements would postpone one time conversion costs of up to 
$440 million.
    A number of provisions in H.R. 2274 would increase costs 
for state and local governments, although in total these costs 
would be significantly lower than the savings described above. 
Federally funded mass transit and highway contracts and 
subcontracts would be required to follow certain federal cost 
principles and use approved indirect cost rates. States would 
have to perform life cycle and value engineering analyses on 
National Highway System projects with an estimated cost of $25 
million or more. In addition, small costs could result from the 
provision requiring high-cost federal aid highway and transit 
projects to submit annual financial plans. Similar increases 
could stem from the requirement for metropolitan planning 
organizations to consider recreational travel and tourism in 
their transportation plans. CBO estimates that the total costs 
resulting from these provisions are unlikely to exceed $200 
million annually.
    8. Estimate comparison: None.
    9. Previous CBO estimate: On July 11, 1995, CBO transmitted 
a cost estimate of S. 440, the National Highway System 
Designation Act of 1995, as passed by the Senate on June 22, 
1994. The Senate bill is very different from this bill except 
for designating the National Highway System, and this estimate 
reflects those differences.
    10. Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: John Patterson and 
Stephanie Weiner. State and local: Karen McVey.
    11. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, for Paul N. 
Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                          House of Representatives,
                                     Committee on Commerce,
                                Washington, DC, September 13, 1995.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House 
        Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: On September 8, 1995, the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure ordered reported H.R. 2274, a 
bill to designate the National Highway System, and for other 
purposes.
    As ordered reported by the Transportation Committee, H.R. 
2274 contains several provisions which fall within the 
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee: Section 207 amends 
Section 1038 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 providing for the use of recycled paving 
material in highway construction; Section 316(c) requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study to develop and 
evaluate radio and microwave technology for a motor vehicle 
safety warning system in furtherance of safety in all types of 
motor vehicles; Section 320 of H.R. 2274 amends Section 176(c) 
of the Clean Air Act providing for transportation conformity; 
and Section 326 amends Section 134(f) of title 23 to add 
``recreational travel and tourism'' as a factor to be 
considered in developing transportation plans.
    In recognition of your desire to move this legislation 
expeditiously, I will not seek a sequential referral of the 
bill; however, by agreeing not to seek a sequential referral, 
the Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over 
these provisions. In addition, the Commerce Committee reserves 
its authority to seek an appropriate number of conferees on 
these and any other provisions of the bill that are within the 
Commerce Committee's jurisdiction during any House-Senate 
conference that may be convened on this legislation.
    I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of 
the Transportation Committee's report on H.R. 2274 and as part 
of the record during consideration of the bill by the full 
House.
    Thank you for your consideration.
            Sincerely,
                                   Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman.
                              ----------                              

Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of September 
13 regarding H.R. 2274, the National Highway System Designation 
Act of 1995. I appreciate your cooperation in not insisting on 
a sequential referral, so that we can proceed expeditiously to 
take this bill up on the Floor.
    I agree that the Commerce Committee has a valid claim to 
jurisdiction over the items cited in your letter. I would 
support your request to have an appropriate number of conferees 
appointed for consideration of these matters in any House-
Senate conference on H.R. 2274.
    Again, thank you for your cooperation.
    With warm regards, I am
            Sincerely,
                                             Bud Shuster, Chairman.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the 
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is 
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed 
is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE

          * * * * * * *

                    CHAPTER 1--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

Sec.

101. Definitions and declaration of policy.
102. Program efficiencies.
103. Federal-aid systems.
     * * * * * * *
[154. National maximum speed limit.]
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 103. Federal-aid systems

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Initial Designation of NHS.--The National Highway System 
as submitted by the Secretary of Transportation on the map 
entitled ``Official Submission, National Highway System, 
Federal Highway Administration'', and dated September 1, 1995, 
is hereby designated within the United States, including the 
District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
  (d) Modifications to the NHS.--
          (1) Proposed modifications.--The Secretary may submit 
        for approval to the Committee on Environment and Public 
        Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation 
        and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 
        proposed modifications to the National Highway System. 
        The Secretary may only propose a modification under 
        this subsection if the Secretary determines that such 
        modification meets the criteria and requirements of 
        subsection (b). Proposed modifications may include new 
        segments and deletion of existing segments of the 
        National Highway System.
          (2) Approval of congress required.--A modification to 
        the National Highway System may only take effect if a 
        law has been enacted approving such modification.
          (3) Required submissions.--
                  (A) Initial submission.--Not later than 180 
                days after the date of the enactment of the 
                National Highway System Designation Act of 
                1995, the Secretary shall submit under 
                paragraph (1) proposed modifications to the 
                National Highway System. Such modifications 
                shall include a list and description of 
                additions to the National Highway System 
                consisting of connections to major ports, 
                airports, international border crossings, 
                public transportation and transit facilities, 
                interstate bus terminals, and rail and other 
                intermodal transportation facilities.
                  (B) Congressional high priority corridors.--
                Upon the completion of feasibility studies, the 
                Secretary shall submit under paragraph (1) 
                proposed modifications to the National Highway 
                System consisting of any congressional high 
                priority corridor or any segment thereof 
                established by section 1105 of the Intermodal 
                Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
                (105 Stat. 2037) which was not identified on 
                the National Highway System designated by 
                subsection (c).
          (4) Interim eligibility.--
                  (A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
                (2), a modification to the National Highway 
                System which adds to the National Highway 
                System a connection to a major port, airport, 
                international border crossing, public 
                transportation or transit facility, interstate 
                bus terminal, or rail or other intermodal 
                transportation facility shall be eligible for 
                funds apportioned under section 104(b)(1) for 
                the National Highway System if the Secretary 
                finds that such modification is consistent with 
                criteria developed by the Secretary for such 
                modifications to the National Highway System.
                  (B) Period of eligibility.--A modification to 
                the National Highway System which is eligible 
                under subparagraph (A) for funds apportioned 
                under section 104(b)(1) may remain eligible for 
                such funds only until the date on which a law 
                has been enacted approving modifications to the 
                National Highway System which connect the 
                National Highway System to facilities referred 
                to in subparagraph (A).
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 104. Apportionment

  (a)  * * *
  (b) On October 1 of each fiscal year except as provided in 
paragraph (5)(A) of this subsection, the Secretary, after 
making the deduction authorized by subsection (a) of this 
section and the set asides authorized by subsection (f) of this 
section and section 307 of this title, shall apportion the 
remainder of the sums authorized to be appropriated for 
expenditure on the surface transportation program, the 
congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program, the 
National Highway System, and the Interstate System for that 
fiscal year, among the several States in the following manner:
          (1)  * * *
          (2) Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
        program.--For the congestion mitigation and air quality 
        improvement program, in the ratio which the weighted 
        nonattainment area population of each State bears to 
        the total weighted nonattainment area population of all 
        States. The weighted nonattainment area population 
        shall be calculated by multiplying the population of 
        each area within any State that [is a nonattainment 
        area (as defined in the Clean Air Act) for ozone] was a 
        nonattainment area (as defined in section 171(2) of the 
        Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7501(2))) for ozone during any 
        part of fiscal year 1994 by a factor of--
                  (A) 1.0 if the area is classified as a 
                marginal ozone nonattainment area under subpart 
                2 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act;
                  (B) 1.1 if the area is classified as a 
                moderate ozone nonattainment area under such 
                subpart;
                  (C) 1.2 if the area is classified as a 
                serious ozone nonattainment area under such 
                subpart;
                  (D) 1.3 if the area is classified as a severe 
                ozone nonattainment area under such subpart; or
                  (E) 1.4 if the area is classified as an 
                extreme ozone nonattainment area under such 
                subpart.
        If the area [is] was also classified under subpart 3 of 
        part D of title I of such Act as a nonattainment area 
        for carbon monoxide during any part of fiscal year 
        1994, for purposes of calculating the weighted 
        nonattainment area population, the weighted 
        nonattainment area population of the area, as 
        determined under the preceding provisions of this 
        paragraph, shall be further multiplied by a factor of 
        1.2. Notwithstanding any provision of this paragraph, 
        in the case of States with a total 1990 census 
        population of 15,000,000 or greater, the amount 
        apportioned under this paragraph in a fiscal year to 
        all of such States in the aggregate, shall be 
        distributed among such States based on their relative 
        populations; except that none of such States shall be 
        distributed more than 42 percent of the aggregate 
        amount so apportioned to all of such States. 
        Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, 
        each State shall receive a minimum apportionment of \1/
        2\ of 1 percent of the funds apportioned under this 
        paragraph. The Secretary shall use estimates prepared 
        by the Secretary of Commerce when determining 
        population figures.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 106. Plans, specifications, and estimates

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (e) Life-Cycle Cost Analysis.--
          (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
        program to require States to conduct an analysis of the 
        life-cycle costs of all projects on the National 
        Highway System with an estimated total cost of 
        $25,000,000 or more.
          (2) Analysis of life-cycle costs defined.--In this 
        subsection, the term ``analysis of life-cycle costs'' 
        means a process for evaluating the total economic worth 
        of one or more projects by analyzing both initial costs 
        as well as discounted future costs, such as 
        maintenance, reconstruction, rehabilitation, restoring, 
        and resurfacing costs, over the life of the project or 
        projects.
  (f) Value Engineering for NHS.--
          (1) Requirement.--The Secretary shall establish a 
        program to require States to carry out a value 
        engineering analysis for all projects on the National 
        Highway System with an estimated total cost of 
        $25,000,000 or more.
          (2) Value engineering defined.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the term ``value engineering analysis'' 
        means a systematic process of review and analysis of a 
        project or activity during its design phase by a 
        multidisciplined team of persons not originally 
        involved in the project or activity in order to provide 
        suggestions for reducing the total cost of the project 
        or activity and providing a project or activity of 
        equal or better quality. Such suggestions may include a 
        combination or elimination of inefficient or expensive 
        parts of the original proposed design for the project 
        or activity and total redesign of the proposed project 
        or activity using different technologies, materials, or 
        methods so as to accomplish the original purpose of the 
        project or activity.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 109. Standards

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (j) The Secretary, after consultation with the Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall develop and 
promulgate guidelines to assure that highways constructed 
pursuant to this title are consistent with any approved [plan 
for the implementation of any ambient air quality standard for 
any air quality control region designated pursuant to the Clean 
Air Act, as amended.] plan for--
          (1) the implementation of a national ambient air 
        quality standard for which an area is designated as a 
        nonattainment area under section 107(d) of the Clean 
        Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)); or
          (2) the maintenance of a national ambient air quality 
        standard in an area that was designated as a 
        nonattainment area but that was later redesignated by 
        the Administrator as an attainment area for the 
        standard and that is required to develop a maintenance 
        plan under section 175A of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
        7505a).
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 112. Letting of contracts

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Bidding Requirements.--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) Contracting for engineering and design 
        services.--
                  (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
                  (C) Performance and audits.--Any contract or 
                subcontract awarded in accordance with 
                subparagraph (A), whether funded in whole or in 
                part with Federal-aid highway funds, shall be 
                performed and audited in compliance with cost 
                principles contained in the Federal acquisition 
                regulations of part 31 of title 48 of the Code 
                of Federal Regulations.
                  (D) Indirect cost rates.--Instead of 
                performing its own audits, a recipient of funds 
                under a contract or subcontract awarded in 
                accordance with subparagraph (A) shall accept 
                indirect cost rates established in accordance 
                with the Federal acquisition regulations for 1-
                year applicable accounting periods by a 
                cognizant Federal or State government agency, 
                if such rates are not currently under dispute. 
                Once a firm's indirect cost rates are accepted, 
                the recipient of such funds shall apply such 
                rates for the purposes of contract estimation, 
                negotiation, administration, reporting, and 
                contract payment and shall not be limited by 
                administrative or de facto ceilings of any 
                kind. A recipient of such funds requesting or 
                using the cost and rate data described in this 
                subparagraph shall notify any affected firm 
                before such request or use. Such data shall be 
                confidential and shall not be accessible or 
                provided, in whole or in part, to another firm 
                or to any government agency which is not part 
                of the group of agencies sharing cost data 
                under this subparagraph, except by written 
                permission of the audited firm. If prohibited 
                by law, such cost and rate data shall not be 
                disclosed under any circumstances.
                  (E) State option.--Subparagraphs (C) and (D) 
                shall take effect 2 years after the date of the 
                enactment of this subparagraph with respect to 
                all States; except that if a State, during such 
                2-year period, adopts by statute an alternative 
                process intended to promote engineering and 
                design quality and ensure maximum competition 
                by professional companies of all sizes 
                providing engineering and design services, such 
                subparagraphs shall not apply with respect to 
                such State.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 120. Federal share payable

  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Increased Federal Share for Certain Safety Projects.--The 
Federal share payable on account of any project for traffic 
control signalization, safety rest areas, pavement marking, 
commuter carpooling and vanpooling, or installation of traffic 
signs, traffic lights, guardrails, impact attenuators, concrete 
barrier endtreatments, breakaway utility poles, or priority 
control systems for emergency vehicles at signalized 
intersections may amount to 100 percent of the cost of 
construction of such projects; except that not more than 10 
percent of all sums apportioned for all the Federal-aid systems 
for any fiscal year in accordance with section 104 of this 
title shall be used under this subsection.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 129. Toll roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferries

  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Notwithstanding section 301 of this title, the Secretary 
may permit Federal participation under this title in the 
construction of ferry boats and terminal facilities, whether 
toll or free, subject to the following conditions:
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (5) Such ferry may be operated only within the State 
        (including the islands which comprise the State of 
        Hawaii and the islands which comprise the Commonwealth 
        of Puerto Rico) or between adjoining States or between 
        a point in a State and a point in the Dominion of 
        Canada. Except with respect to operations between the 
        islands which comprise the State of Hawaii and 
        operations between the islands which comprise the 
        Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, between a point in a State 
        and a point in the Dominion of Canada, and operations 
        between any two points in Alaska and between Alaska and 
        Washington, including stops at appropriate points in 
        the Dominion of Canada, no part of such ferry 
        operations shall be in any foreign or international 
        waters.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 131. Control of outdoor advertising

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Effective control means that such signs, displays, or 
devices after January 1, 1968, if located within six hundred 
and sixty feet of the right-of-way and, on or after July 1, 
1975, or after the expiration of the next regular session of 
the State legislature, whichever is later, if located beyond 
six hundred and sixty feet of the right-of-way, located outside 
of urban areas, visible from the main traveled way of the 
system, and erected with the purpose of their message being 
read from such main traveled way, shall, pursuant to this 
section be limited to (1) directional and official signs and 
notices, which signs and notices shall include, but not be 
limited to, signs and notices pertaining to natural wonders, 
scenic and historical attractions, which are required or 
authorized by law, which shall conform to national standards 
hereby authorized to be promulgated by the Secretary hereunder, 
which standards shall contain provisions concerning lighting, 
size, number, and spacing of signs, and such other requirements 
as may be appropriate to implement this section, (2) signs, 
displays, and devices advertising the sale or lease of property 
upon which they are located, (3) signs, displays, and devices, 
including those which may be changed at reasonable intervals by 
electronic process or by remote control, advertising activities 
conducted on the property on which they are located, (4) signs 
lawfully in existence on October 22, 1965, determined by the 
State, subject to the approval of the Secretary, to be landmark 
signs, including signs on farm structures or natural surfaces, 
of historic or artistic significance the preservation of which 
would be consistent with the purposes of this section, [and 
(5)] (5) signs, displays, and devices identifying and 
announcing free motorist aid call boxes and advertising their 
sponsorship by corporations or other organizations, and (6) 
signs, displays, and devices advertising the distribution by 
nonprofit organizations of free coffee to individuals traveling 
on the Interstate System or the primary system. For the 
purposes of this subsection, the term ``free coffee'' shall 
include coffee for which a donation may be made, but is not 
required. The Secretary shall ensure that spacing of signs, 
displays, and devices announcing motorist aid call boxes is 
reasonable.
          * * * * * * *
  (f) The Secretary shall, in consultations with the States, 
provide within the rights-of-way for areas at appropriate 
distances from interchanges on the Interstate System, on which 
signs, displays, and devices giving specific information in the 
interest of the traveling public may be erected and maintained. 
The Secretary may also, in consultation with the States, 
provide within the rights-of-way of the primary system for 
areas in which signs, displays, and devices giving specific 
information in the interest of the traveling public may be 
erected and maintained. Such signs shall conform to national 
standards to be promulgated by the Secretary. For purposes of 
this subsection, the term ``specific information in the 
interest of the traveling public'' includes identification, 
announcement, and sponsorship of motorist aid call boxes.
          * * * * * * *
  (s) Scenic Byway Prohibition.--If a State has a scenic byway 
program, the State may not allow the erection along any highway 
on the Interstate System or Federal-aid primary system which 
before, on, or after the effective date of this subsection, is 
designated as a scenic byway under such program of any sign, 
display, or device which is not in conformance with subsection 
(c) of this section[.]; except that nothing in this subsection 
or section 1047 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 shall restrict, or otherwise be applied 
by the Secretary to affect, the authority of a State under 
subsection (d) of this section with respect to commercial or 
industrial areas or the authority of a State under subsection 
(k) of this section to establish standards imposing stricter 
limitations than those established in this subsection. Control 
of any sign, display, or device on such a highway shall be in 
accordance with this section.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 134. Metropolitan planning

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (f) Factors To Be Considered.--In developing transportation 
plans and programs pursuant to this section, each metropolitan 
planning organization shall, at a minimum, consider the 
following:
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (16) Recreational travel and tourism.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 141. Enforcement of requirements

  [(a) Each State shall certify to the Secretary before January 
1 of each year that it is enforcing all speed limits on public 
highways in accordance with section 154 of this title. The 
Secretary shall not approve any project under section 106 of 
this title in any State which has failed to certify in 
accordance with this subsection.]
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 144. Highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (l) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any bridge 
which is owned and operated by an agency (1) which does not 
have taxing powers, (2) whose functions include operating a 
federally assisted public transit system subsidized by toll 
revenues, shall be eligible for assistance under this section 
but the amount of such assistance shall in no event exceed the 
cumulative amount which such agency has expended for capital 
and operating costs to subsidize such transit system. Before 
authorizing an expenditure of funds under this subsection, the 
Secretary shall determine that the applicant agency has 
insufficient reserves, surpluses, and projected revenues (over 
and above those required for bridge and transit capital and 
operating costs) to fund the necessary bridge replacement or 
rehabilitation project. Any non-Federal funds expended for the 
seismic retrofit of the bridge may be credited toward the non-
Federal share required as a condition of receipt of any Federal 
funds for seismic retrofit of the bridge made available after 
the date of the expenditure.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 149. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Eligible Projects.--Except as provided in subsection (c), 
a State may obligate funds apportioned to it under section 
104(b)(2) for the congestion mitigation and air quality 
improvement program only for a transportation project or 
program for areas in the State that were designated as 
nonattainment areas under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act 
(42 U.S.C. 7407(d))--
          (1)(A) if the Secretary, after consultation with the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
        determines, on the basis of information published by 
        the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to section 
        108(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act (other than clauses 
        (xii) and (xvi) of such section), that the project or 
        program is likely to [contribute to the attainment of a 
        national ambient air quality standard; or] contribute 
        to--
                  (i) the attainment of a national ambient air 
                quality standard; or
                  (ii) the maintenance of a national ambient 
                air quality standard in an area that was 
                designated as a nonattainment area but that was 
                later redesignated by the Administrator of the 
                Environmental Protection Agency as an 
                attainment area under section 107(d) of the 
                Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)); or
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 153. Use of safety belts and motorcycle helmets

  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (h) Penalty.--
          (1) Fiscal year 1994.--If, at any time in fiscal year 
        1994, a State does not have in effect [a law described 
        in subsection (a)(1) and] a law described in subsection 
        (a)(2), the Secretary shall transfer 1\1/2\ percent of 
        the funds apportioned to the State for fiscal year 1995 
        under each of subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of 
        section 104 of this title to the apportionment of the 
        State under section 402 of this title.
          (2) Thereafter.--If, at any time in a fiscal year 
        beginning after September 30, 1994, a State does not 
        have in effect [a law described in subsection (a)(1) 
        and] a law described in subsection (a)(2), the 
        Secretary shall transfer 3 percent of the funds 
        apportioned to the State for the succeeding fiscal year 
        under each of subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of 
        section 104 of this title to the apportionment of the 
        State under section 402 of this title.
          * * * * * * *

[Sec. 154. National maximum speed limit

  [(a) The Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any 
project under section 106 in any State which has (1) a maximum 
speed limit on any public highway within its jurisdiction in 
excess of fifty-five miles per hour other than a highway on the 
Interstate System located outside of an urbanized area of 
50,000 population or more, (2) a maximum speed limit on any 
highway within its jurisdiction on the Interstate System 
located outside of an urbanized area of 50,000 population or 
more in excess of 65 miles per hour, (3) a maximum speed limit 
in excess of 65 miles per hour on any highway within its 
jurisdiction located outside an urbanized area of 50,000 
population or more (A) which is constructed to interstate 
standards in accordance with section 109(b) of this title and 
connected to a highway on the Interstate System, (B) which is a 
divided 4-lane fully controlled access highway designed or 
constructed to connect to a highway on the Interstate System 
posted at 65 miles per hour and constructed to design and 
construction standards as determined by the Secretary which 
provide a facility adequate for a speed limit of 65 miles per 
hour, or (C) which is constructed to the geometric and 
construction standards adequate for current and probable future 
traffic demands and for the needs of the locality and is 
designated by the Secretary as part of the Interstate System in 
accordance with section 139(c) of this title, or (4) a speed 
limit on any other portion of a public highway within its 
jurisdiction which is not uniformly applicable to all types of 
motor vehicles using such portion of highway, if on November 1, 
1973, such portion of highway had a speed limit which was 
uniformly applicable to all types of motor vehicles using it. A 
lower speed limit may be established for any vehicle operating 
under a special permit because of any weight or dimension of 
such vehicle, including any load thereon. Clause (4) of this 
subsection shall not apply to any portion of a highway, during 
such time that the condition of the highway, weather, an 
accident, or other condition creates a temporary hazard to the 
safety of traffic on such portion of a highway.
  [(b) As used in this section the term ``motor vehicle'' means 
any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured 
primarily for use on public highways, except any vehicle 
operated exclusively on a rail or rails.
  [(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 120 sums 
apportioned to any State under section 104 shall be available 
to pay the entire cost of any modification of the signing of 
the Federal-aid highways for which such sums are apportioned 
within such State due to a reduction in speed limits to 
conserve fuel if such change in signing occurs or has occurred 
after November 1, 1973.
  [(d) The requirements of this section shall be deemed 
complied with by administrative action lawfully taken by the 
Governor or other appropriate State official that complies with 
this section.
  [(e) Each State shall submit to the Secretary such data as 
the Secretary determines by rule is necessary to support its 
certification under section 141 of this title for the twelve-
month period ending on September 30 before the date the 
certification is required, including data on the percentage of 
motor vehicles exceeding the speed limit on maximum speed limit 
highways in accordance with criteria to be established by the 
Secretary, including criteria which takes into account the 
variability of speedometer readings and criteria based upon the 
speeds of all vehicles or a representative sample of all 
vehicles. Such data shall include, but not be limited to, data 
on citations, travel speeds, and the posted speed limit and the 
design characteristics of roads from which such travel speed 
data are gathered. The Secretary shall issue regulations which 
ensure (1) that the monitoring programs conducted by the States 
to collect data for purposes of this subsection are uniform, 
(2) that devices and equipment under such programs are placed 
at locations on maximum speed limit highways on a 
scientifically random basis which takes into account the 
relative risk, as determined by the Secretary, of motor vehicle 
accidents occurring considering the classes of such highways 
and the speeds at which vehicles are traveling on such classes 
of highways, and (3) that the data submitted under this 
subsection will be in such form as the Secretary determines is 
necessary to carry out this section.
  [(i) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall transmit to Congress 
an annual report on travel speeds of motor vehicles on roads 
subject to subsection (a), State enforcement efforts with 
respect to speeding violations on such roads, and speed-related 
highway safety statistics.]
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 157. Minimum allocation

      (a) General Rules.--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (4) Thereafter.--[In fiscal]
                  (A) In general.--In fiscal year 1992 and each 
                fiscal year thereafter on October 1, or as soon 
                as possible thereafter, the Secretary shall 
                allocate funds authorized to be appropriated by 
                subsection (f) among the States amounts 
                sufficient to ensure that a State's percentage 
                of the total apportionments in each such fiscal 
                year and allocations for the prior fiscal year 
                for Interstate construction, Interstate 
                maintenance, Interstate highway substitute, 
                National Highway System, surface transportation 
                program, bridge program, scenic byways, and 
                grants for safety belts and motorcycle helmets 
                shall not be less than 90 percent of the 
                percentage of estimated tax payments 
                attributable to highway users in the State paid 
                into the Highway Trust Fund, other than the 
                Mass Transit Account, in the latest fiscal year 
                for which data are available.
                  (B) Additional allocation.--If the aggregate 
                amount allocated to the States under 
                subparagraph (A) after application of section 
                1003(c) the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
                Efficiency Act of 1991 for any fiscal year 
                beginning after September 30, 1995, is less 
                than the amount authorized to be appropriated 
                to carry out this section for such fiscal year, 
                then the excess of such authorized amount shall 
                be allocated as follows:
                          (i) The Secretary shall first 
                        allocate to each State such amount as 
                        may be necessary to increase the 
                        allocation under subparagraph (A) to 
                        the amount that would have been 
                        allocated to the State for such fiscal 
                        year if the full amount of the funds 
                        authorized to be appropriated for such 
                        fiscal year by such Act out of the 
                        Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 
                        Transit Account) were appropriated 
                        without regard to such section 1003(c).
                          (ii) If any of such excess remains 
                        after the allocation under clause (i), 
                        the Secretary shall allocate to each 
                        State such amount as may be necessary 
                        so that the amount authorized to be 
                        appropriated for such fiscal year for 
                        each project to be carried out in such 
                        State under sections 1103 through 1108 
                        of such Act without regard to section 
                        1003(c) of such Act is available for 
                        the project.
                          (iii) The Secretary shall allocate 
                        among the States any excess remaining 
                        after the allocations under clauses (i) 
                        and (ii) so that each State is 
                        allocated the following percentages of 
                        the remaining excess:

        States:                                             Percentages 
          Alabama................................................. 1.80 
          Alaska.................................................. 1.20 
          Arizona................................................. 1.43 
          Arkansas................................................ 1.42 
          California.............................................. 9.17 
          Colorado................................................ 1.27 
          Connecticut............................................. 1.74 
          Delaware................................................ 0.39 
          District of Columbia.................................... 0.52 
          Florida................................................. 4.04 
          Georgia................................................. 2.92 
          Hawaii.................................................. 0.54 
          Idaho................................................... 0.70 
          Illinois................................................ 3.88 
          Indiana................................................. 2.18 
          Iowa.................................................... 1.27 
          Kansas.................................................. 1.13 
          Kentucky................................................ 1.53 
          Louisiana............................................... 1.52 
          Maine................................................... 0.65 
          Maryland................................................ 1.68 
          Massachusetts........................................... 4.11 
          Michigan................................................ 2.75 
          Minnesota............................................... 1.69 
          Mississippi............................................. 1.11 
          Missouri................................................ 2.28 
          Montana................................................. 0.93 
          Nebraska................................................ 0.79 
          Nevada.................................................. 0.69 
          New Hampshire........................................... 0.48 
          New Jersey.............................................. 2.86 
          New Mexico.............................................. 1.02 
          New York................................................ 5.35 
          North Carolina.......................................... 2.62 
          North Dakota............................................ 0.64 
          Ohio.................................................... 3.64 
          Oklahoma................................................ 1.36 
          Oregon.................................................. 1.23 
          Pennsylvania............................................ 4.93 
          Rhode Island............................................ 0.56 
          South Carolina.......................................... 1.42 
          South Dakota............................................ 0.69 
          Tennessee............................................... 2.00 
          Texas................................................... 6.21 
          Utah.................................................... 0.73 
          Vermont................................................. 0.43 
          Virginia................................................ 2.28 
          Washington.............................................. 2.05 
          West Virginia........................................... 1.15 
          Wisconsin............................................... 1.90 
          Wyoming................................................. 0.65 
          Puerto Rico............................................. 0.46 
          Territories.............................................0.01. 

                  (C) Territories defined.--In this paragraph, 
                the term ``territories'' means the Virgin 
                Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
                Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Special Rule for Urbanized Areas of Over 200,000 in 
Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997.--
          (1) General rule.--The percentage determined under 
        paragraph (2) of funds allocated to a State under 
        subsection (a)(4)(B)(iii) for each of fiscal years 1996 
        and 1997 shall be obligated in urbanized areas of the 
        State with an urbanized population of over 200,000 
        under section 133(d)(3).
          (2) Percentage.--The percentage referred to in 
        paragraph (1) is the percentage determined by 
        dividing--
                  (A) the total amount of the reduction in 
                funds which would have been attributed under 
                section 133(d)(3) to urbanized areas of the 
                State with an urbanized population of over 
                200,000 for fiscal year 1996 as a result of the 
                application of section 1003(c) of the 
                Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
                Act of 1991; by
                  (B) the total amount of the reduction in 
                authorized funds for fiscal year 1996 that 
                would have been allocated to the State, and 
                that would have been apportioned to the State, 
                as a result of the application of such section 
                1003(c).
  [(d)] (e) Treatment of Withheld Apportionments.--For purposes 
of subsection (a), any funds which, but for section 154(f) or 
158(a) of this title or any other provision of law under which 
Federal-aid highway funds are withheld from apportionment, 
would be apportioned to a State in a fiscal year under a 
section referred to in subsection (a) shall be treated as being 
apportioned in such year.
  [(e)] (f) In order to carry out this section there is 
authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund, 
other than the Mass Transit Account, such sums as may be 
necessary for each of the fiscal years ending on or after 
September 30, 1983 and before October 1, 1995, $1,101,000,000 
for fiscal year 1996, $1,378,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.
          * * * * * * *

                     CHAPTER 3.--GENERAL PROVISIONS

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 306. Mapping

  (a) In General.--In carrying out the provisions of this 
title, the Secretary may, wherever practicable, authorize the 
use of photogrammetric methods in mapping, and the utilization 
of commercial enterprise for such services.
  (b) Guidance.--The Secretary shall issue guidance to 
encourage States to utilize, to the maximum extent practicable, 
private sector sources for surveying and mapping services for 
highway projects under this title. In carrying out this 
subsection, the Secretary shall determine appropriate roles for 
State and private mapping and surveying activities, including--
          (1) preparation of standards and specifications;
          (2) research in surveying and mapping instrumentation 
        and procedures and technology transfer to the private 
        sector;
          (3) providing technical guidance, coordination, and 
        administration of State surveying and mapping 
        activities; and
          (4) establishing a schedule with quantifiable goals 
        for increasing the use by the States of private sector 
        sources for surveying and mapping activities.
          * * * * * * *

                       Chapter 4.--HIGHWAY SAFETY

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 409. Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and 
                    surveys

      Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, 
surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for 
the purpose of identifying evaluating, or planning the safety 
enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway 
conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 
130, 144, and 152 of this title or for the purpose of 
developing any highway safety construction improvement project 
which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds 
shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in 
a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other 
purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence 
at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, 
schedules, lists, or data.

Sec. 410. Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Basic Grant Eligibility.--A State is eligible for a basic 
grant under this section in a fiscal year only if such State 
provides for 5 or more of the following:
          (1) Establishes an expedited driver's license 
        suspension or revocation system for persons who operate 
        motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol 
        which requires that--
                  (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
                  (E) in the case of a person who, in any 5-
                year period beginning after [the date of 
                enactment of this section] December 18, 1991, 
                is determined on the basis of a chemical test 
                to have been operating a motor vehicle under 
                the influence of alcohol or is determined to 
                have refused to submit to such a test as 
                proposed by the law enforcement officer, the 
                State entity responsible for administering 
                drivers' licenses, upon receipt of the report 
                of the law enforcement officer--
                          (i)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (3)(A) A statewide program for stopping motor 
        vehicles on a nondiscriminatory, lawful basis for the 
        purpose of determining whether or not the operators of 
        such motor vehicles are driving while under the 
        influence of alcohol.
          (B) A State shall be treated as having met the 
        requirement of this paragraph if--
                  (i) the State provides to the Secretary a 
                written certification that the highest court of 
                the State has issued a decision indicating that 
                implementation of subparagraph (A) would 
                constitute a violation of the constitution of 
                the State; and
                  (ii) the State demonstrates to the 
                satisfaction of the Secretary--
                          (I) that the alcohol fatal crash 
                        involvement rate in the State has 
                        decreased in each of the 3 most recent 
                        calendar years for which statistics for 
                        determining such rate are available; 
                        and
                          (II) that the alcohol fatal crash 
                        involvement rate in the State has been 
                        lower than the average such rate for 
                        all States in each of such calendar 
                        years.
          * * * * * * *
          (7) Any individual under age 21 with a blood alcohol 
        concentration of 0.02 percent or greater when driving a 
        motor vehicle shall be deemed to be driving while 
        intoxicated.
          * * * * * * *
  (f) Supplemental Grants.--
          [(1) Blood alcohol concentration for persons under 
        age 21.--Subject to subsection (c), a State shall be 
        eligible to receive a supplemental grant in a fiscal 
        year of 5 percent of the amount apportioned to the 
        State in fiscal year 1992 under section 402 of this 
        title if the State is eligible for a basic grant in the 
        fiscal year and provides that any person under age 21 
        with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or 
        greater when driving a motor vehicle shall be deemed to 
        be driving while intoxicated.
          [(2)] (1) Open container laws.--Subject to subsection 
        (c), a State shall be eligible to receive a 
        supplemental grant in a fiscal year of 5 percent of the 
        amount apportioned to the State in fiscal year 1992 
        under section 402 of this title if the State is 
        eligible for a basic grant in the fiscal year and makes 
        unlawful the possession of any open alcoholic beverage 
        container, or the consumption of any alcoholic 
        beverage, in the passenger area of any motor vehicle 
        located on a public highway or the right-of-way of a 
        public highway, except--
                  (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          [(3)] (2) Suspension of registration and return of 
        license plates.--Subject to subsection (c), a State 
        shall be eligible to receive a supplemental grant in a 
        fiscal year of 5 percent of the amount apportioned to 
        the State in fiscal year 1992 under section 402 of this 
        title if the State is eligible for a basic grant in the 
        fiscal year and provides for the suspension of the 
        registration of, and the return to such State of the 
        license plates for an individual who--
                  (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          [(4)] (3) Mandatory blood alcohol concentration 
        testing programs.--Subject to subsection (c), a State 
        shall be eligible to receive a supplemental grant in a 
        fiscal year of 5 percent of the amount apportioned to 
        the State in fiscal year 1992 under section 402 of this 
        title if the State is eligible for a basic grant in the 
        fiscal year and provides for mandatory blood alcohol 
        concentration testing whenever a law enforcement 
        officer has probable cause under State law to believe 
        that a driver of a motor vehicle involved in an 
        accident resulting in the loss of human life or, as 
        determined by the Secretary, serious bodily injury, has 
        committed an alcohol-related traffic offense.
          [(5)] (4) Drugged driving prevention.--Subject to 
        subsection (c), a State shall be eligible to receive a 
        supplemental grant in a fiscal year of 5 percent of the 
        amount apportioned to the State in fiscal year 1992 
        under section 402 of this title if the State is 
        eligible for a basic grant in the fiscal year and--
                  (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          [(6)] (5) Blood alcohol concentration level 
        percentage.--Subject to subsection (c), a State shall 
        be eligible to receive a supplemental grant in a fiscal 
        year of 5 percent of the amount apportioned to the 
        State in fiscal year 1992 under section 402 of this 
        title if the State is eligible for a basic grant in the 
        fiscal year and requires that any person with a blood 
        alcohol concentration of .08 percent or greater when 
        driving a motor vehicle shall be deemed to be driving 
        while intoxicated in each of the first three fiscal 
        years in which a basic grant is received.
          [(7)] (6) Video equipment for detection of drunk and 
        drugged drivers.--Subject to subsection (c), a State 
        shall be eligible to receive a supplemental grant in a 
        fiscal year of 5 percent of the amount apportioned to 
        the State in fiscal year 1992 under section 402 of this 
        title if the State is eligible for a basic grant in the 
        fiscal year and provides a program to acquire video 
        equipment to be used in detecting persons who operate 
        motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol or 
        a controlled substance and in effectively prosecuting 
        those persons, and to train personnel in the use of 
        that equipment.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


        INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991

          * * * * * * *

                    TITLE I--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

                       Part A--Title 23 Programs

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 1023. GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RESTRICTION.

  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (h) Public Transit Vehicles.--
          (1) Temporary exemption.--The second sentence of 
        section 127 of title 23, United States Code, relating 
        to axle weight limitations for vehicles using the 
        Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense 
        Highways, shall not apply, for the [2-year period 
        beginning on the date of enactment of this Act,] period 
        beginning on October 6, 1992, and ending on the date on 
        which Federal-aid highway and transit programs are 
        reauthorized after the date of the enactment of the 
        National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, to any 
        vehicle which is regularly and exclusively used as an 
        intrastate public agency transit passenger bus. The 
        Secretary may extend such 2-year period for an 
        additional year.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 1036. NATIONAL HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS.

  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Funding.--
          (1) Out of highway trust fund.--There shall be 
        available from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
        Mass Transit Account) the following sums:
                  (A) National magnetic levitation prototype 
                development program.--For the national magnetic 
                levitation prototype development program under 
                this section $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1992, 
                $45,000,000 for fiscal year 1993, $100,000,000 
                for fiscal year 1994, and $100,000,000 for 
                fiscal year 1995[, $125,000,000 for fiscal year 
                1996, and $125,000,000 for fiscal year 1997].
                  (B) National high-speed ground transportation 
                technology demonstration program.--For the 
                national high-speed ground transportation 
                technology demonstration program under section 
                309 of title 49, United States Code, $5,000,000 
                for each of fiscal years 1993, 1994, 1995, 
                [1996, and 1997] and 1996.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 1038. USE OF RECYCLED PAVING MATERIAL.

  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  [(d) Use of Asphalt Pavement Containing Recycled Rubber.--
          [(1) State certification.--Beginning on January 1, 
        1995, and annually thereafter, each State shall certify 
        to the Secretary that such State has satisfied the 
        minimum utilization requirement for asphalt pavement 
        containing recycled rubber established by this section. 
        The minimum utilization requirement for asphalt 
        pavement containing recycled rubber as a percentage of 
        the total tons of asphalt laid in such State and 
        financed in whole or part by any assistance pursuant to 
        title 23, United States Code, shall be--
                  [(A) 5 percent for the year 1994;
                  [(B) 10 percent for the year 1995;
                  [(C) 15 percent for the year 1996; and
                  [(D) 20 percent for the year 1997 and each 
                year thereafter.
          [(2) Other materials.--Any recycled material or 
        materials determined to be appropriate by the studies 
        under subsection (b) may be substituted for recycled 
        rubber under the minimum utilization requirement of 
        paragraph (1) up to 5 percent.
          [(3) Increase.--The Secretary may increase the 
        minimum utilization requirement of paragraph (1) for 
        asphalt pavement containing recycled rubber to be used 
        in federally assisted highway projects to the extent it 
        is technologically and economically feasible to do so 
        and if an increase is appropriate to assure markets for 
        the reuse and recycling of scrap tires. The minimum 
        utilization requirement for asphalt pavement containing 
        recycled rubber may not be met by any use or technique 
        found to be unsuitable for use in highway projects by 
        the studies under subsection (b).
          [(4) Penalty.--The Secretary shall withhold from any 
        State that fails to make a certification under 
        paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, a percentage of the 
        apportionments under section 104 (other than subsection 
        (b)(5)(A)) of title 23, United States Code, that would 
        otherwise be apportioned to such State for such fiscal 
        year under such section equal to the percentage 
        utilization requirement established by paragraph (1) 
        for such fiscal year.
          [(5) Secretarial waiver.--The Secretary may set aside 
        the provisions of this subsection for any 3-year period 
        on a determination, made in concurrence with the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
        with respect to subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this 
        paragraph, that there is reliable evidence indicating--
                  [(A) that manufacture, application, or use of 
                asphalt pavement containing recycled rubber 
                substantially increases the threat to human 
                health or the environment as compared to the 
                threats associated with conventional pavement;
                  [(B) that asphalt pavement containing 
                recycled rubber cannot be recycled to 
                substantially the same degree as conventional 
                pavement; or
                  [(C) that asphalt pavement containing 
                recycled rubber does not perform adequately as 
                a material for the construction or surfacing of 
                highways and roads.
        The Secretary shall consider the results of the study 
        under subsection (b)(1) in determining whether a 3-year 
        set-aside is appropriate.
          [(6) Renewal of waiver.--Any determination made to 
        set aside the requirements of this section may be 
        renewed for an additional 3-year period by the 
        Secretary, with the concurrence of the Administrator 
        with respect to the determinations made under 
        paragraphs (5)(A) and (5)(B). Any determination made 
        with respect to paragraph (5)(C) may be made for 
        specific States or regions considering climate, 
        geography, and other factors that may be unique to the 
        State or region and that would prevent the adequate 
        performance of asphalt pavement containing recycled 
        rubber.
          [(7) Individual state reduction.--The Secretary shall 
        establish a minimum utilization requirement for asphalt 
        pavement containing recycled rubber less than the 
        minimum utilization requirement otherwise required by 
        paragraph (1) in a particular State, upon the request 
        of such State and if the Secretary, with the 
        concurrence of the Administrator of the Environmental 
        Protection Agency, determines that there is not a 
        sufficient quantity of scrap tires available in the 
        State prior to disposal to meet the minimum utilization 
        requirement established under paragraph (1) as the 
        result of recycling and processing uses (in that State 
        or another State), including retreading or energy 
        recovery.]
  [(e)] (d) Definitions.--For purpose of this section--
          (1) the term ``asphalt pavement containing recycled 
        rubber'' means any hot mix or spray applied binder in 
        asphalt paving mixture that contains rubber from whole 
        scrap tires which is used for asphalt pavement base, 
        surface course or interlayer, or other road and highway 
        related uses and--
                  (A) is a mixture of not less than 20 pounds 
                of recycled rubber per ton of hot mix or 300 
                pounds of recycled rubber per ton of spray 
                applied binder; or
                  (B) is any mixture of asphalt pavement and 
                recycled rubber that is certified by a State 
                and is approved by the Secretary, provided that 
                the total amount of recycled rubber from whole 
                scrap tires utilized in any year in such State 
                shall be not less than the amount that would be 
                utilized if all asphalt pavement containing 
                recycled rubber laid in such State met the 
                specifications of subparagraph (A) and 
                subsection (d)(1); and
          (2) the term ``recycled rubber'' is any crumb rubber 
        derived from processing whole scrap tires or shredded 
        tire material taken from automobiles, trucks, or other 
        equipment owned and operated in the United States.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 1058. ROADSIDE BARRIER TECHNOLOGY.

  (a) Requirement for Innovative Barriers.--Not less than 2\1/
2\ percent of the mileage of new or replacement permanent 
[median] or temporary crashworthy barriers included in awarded 
contracts along Federal-aid highways within the boundaries of a 
State in each calendar year shall be innovative crashworthy 
safety barriers.
  (b) Certification.--Each State shall annually certify to the 
Secretary its compliance with the requirements of this section.
  (c) Definition of Innovative Crashworthy Safety Barrier.--For 
purposes of this section, the term ``innovative crashworthy 
safety barrier'' means a [median] barrier, other than a 
guardrail or guiderail, classified by the Federal Highway 
Administration as ``experimental'' or that was classified as 
``operational'' after January 1, 1985, and meets or surpasses 
the requirements of the National Cooperative Highway Research 
Program 350 for longitudinal barriers.
          * * * * * * *

[SEC. 1092. PILOT PROGRAM FOR UNIFORM AUDIT PROCEDURES.

  [(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot 
program under which any contract or subcontract awarded in 
accordance with section 112(b)(2)(A) of title 23, United States 
Code, shall be performed and audited in compliance with cost 
principles contained in the Federal acquisition regulations of 
part 31 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The 
pilot program under this section shall include participation of 
not more than 10 States.
  [(b) Indirect Cost Rates.--In lieu of performing their own 
audits, the States participating in the pilot program shall 
accept indirect cost rates established in accordance with the 
Federal acquisition regulations for 1-year applicable 
accounting periods by a cognizant government agency or audited 
by an independent certified public accountant, if such rates 
are not currently under dispute. Once a firm's indirect cost 
rates are accepted, all the recipients of such funds shall 
apply such rates for the purposes of contract estimation, 
negotiation, administration, reporting, and contract payment 
and shall not be limited by administrative or defacto ceilings 
in accordance with section 15.901(c) of such title 48. A 
recipient of such funds requesting or using the cost and rate 
data described in this subsection shall notify any affected 
firm before such request or use. Such data shall be 
confidential and shall not be accessible or provided, in whole 
or in part, to any other firm or to any government agency which 
is not part of the group of agencies sharing cost data under 
this subsection, except by written permission of the audited 
firm. If prohibited by law, such cost and rate data shall not 
be disclosed under any circumstances.
  [(c) Report.--Each State participating in the pilot program 
shall report to the Secretary not later than 3 years after the 
date of the enactment of this Act on the results of the 
program.]
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 1103. HIGH COST BRIDGE PROJECTS.

  (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide funds 
to accelerate construction of high cost bridge projects.
  (b) Authorization of Projects.--The Secretary is authorized 
to carry out the high cost of bridge projects described in this 
subsection. Subject to subsection (c), there is authorized to 
be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
Mass Transit Account) for fiscal years 1992 through 1997 to 
carry out each such project the amount listed for each such 
project:

      

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       AMOUNT in
                      CITY/STATE                               HIGH COST BRIDGES                       millions 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.........  Delaware, Oklahoma..........  Construction of a replacement bridge on U.S. Rt. 59 over             
                                            Grand Lake in Delaware, Oklahoma........................        9.7 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 5.........  Gloucester Point, Virginia    Provide for additional crossing capacity of the York                 
                                            River and for repair, strengthening, and rehabilitation             
                                            of the existing bridge..................................       11.8 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
10.........  Shakopee, Minnesota.........  Bloomington Ferry Bridge replacement project, including              
                                            the bypass of, Shakopee, Minnesota......................       22.0 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      

SEC. 1104. CONGESTION RELIEF PROJECTS.

  (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to improve 
methods of congestion relief.
  (b) Authorization of Projects.--The Secretary is authorized 
to carry out the congestion relief projects described in this 
subsection. Subject to subsection (c), there is authorized to 
be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
Mass Transit Account) for fiscal years 1992 through 1997 to 
carry out each such project the amount listed for each such 
project:
      

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       AMOUNT in
                      CITY/STATE                               CONGESTION RELIEF                       millions 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.........  Long Beach, California......  Construction of [HOV Lanes on] downtown Long Beach access            
                                            ramps into the southern terminus of I-710...............        7.4 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
10.........  San Diego, California.......  Construct [1 block of Cut and Cover Tunnel on Rt. 15]                
                                            bridge decking on Route 15 in downtown San Diego,                   
                                            California..............................................        5.0 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
23.........  Tucson, Arizona.............  To make interchange improvements at Oracle and Orange                
                                            Grove Roads in Tucson, Arizona, of which a total of                 
                                            $3,609,620 shall be available for the project authorized            
                                            by item number 74 of the table contained in section                 
                                            1106(b).................................................        3.9 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
43.........  West Virginia...............  Construction of the [Coal Fields] Coalfields Expressway              
                                            from Beckley, West Virginia to Virginia State line......       50.0 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      

SEC. 1105. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Identification of High Priority Corridors on National 
Highway System.--The following are high priority corridors on 
the National Highway System:
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (3) East-West Transamerica Corridor commencing on the 
        Atlantic Coast in the Hampton Roads-Norfolk area going 
        westward across Virginia to a West Virginia corridor 
        centered around Beckley to Welch as part of the 
        Coalfields Expressway described in section 1069(v), 
        then to Williamson sharing a common corridor with the 
        I-73/74 Corridor (referred to in item 12 of the table 
        contained in subsection (f)), then to a Kentucky 
        Corridor centered on the cities of Pikeville, Jenkins, 
        Hazard, London, Somerset, Columbia, Bowling Green, 
        Hopkinsville, Benton, and Paducah, into Illinois, and 
        into Missouri and exiting Western Missouri and entering 
        the southeast corner of Kansas.
          * * * * * * *
          [(5) I-73/74 North-South Corridor from Charleston, 
        South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 
        to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, and Detroit, 
        Michigan.]
          (5)(A) I-73/74 North-South Corridor from Charleston, 
        South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 
        to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, to termini at 
        Detroit, Michigan and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The 
        Sault Ste. Marie terminus shall be reached via a 
        corridor connecting Adrian, Jackson, Lansing, Mount 
        Pleasant, and Grayling, Michigan.
          (B)(i) In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Corridor 
        shall generally follow--
                  (I) United States Route 220 from the 
                Virginia-North Carolina border to I-581 south 
                of Roanoke;
                  (II) I-581 to I-81 in the vicinity of 
                Roanoke;
                  (III) I-81 to the proposed highway to 
                demonstrate intelligent transportation systems 
                authorized by item 29 of the table in section 
                1107(b) in the vicinity of Christiansburg to 
                United States Route 460 in the vicinity of 
                Blacksburg; and
                  (IV) United States Route 460 to the West 
                Virginia State line.
          (ii) In the States of West Virginia, Kentucky, and 
        Ohio, the Corridor shall generally follow--
                  (I) United States Route 460 from the West 
                Virginia State line to United States Route 52 
                at Bluefield, West Virginia; and
                  (II) United States Route 52 to United States 
                Route 23 at Portsmouth, Ohio.
          (iii) In the States of North Carolina and South 
        Carolina, the Corridor shall generally follow--
                  (I) in the case of I-73--
                          (aa) United States Route 220 from the 
                        Virginia State line to State Route 68 
                        in the vicinity of Greensboro;
                          (bb) State Route 68 to I-40;
                          (cc) I-40 to United States Route 220 
                        in Greensboro;
                          (dd) United States Route 220 to 
                        United States Route 1 near Rockingham;
                          (ee) United States Route 1 to the 
                        South Carolina State line; and
                          (ff) South Carolina State line to 
                        Charleston, South Carolina; and
                  (II) in the case of I-74--
                          (aa) I-77 from Bluefield, West 
                        Virginia, to the junction of I-77 and 
                        the United States Route 52 connector in 
                        Surry County, North Carolina;
                          (bb) the I-77/United States Route 52 
                        connector to United States Route 52 
                        south of Mount Airy, North Carolina;
                          (cc) United States Route 52 to United 
                        States Route 311 in Winston-Salem, 
                        North Carolina;
                          (dd) United States Route 311 to 
                        United States Route 220 in the vicinity 
                        of Randleman, North Carolina.
                          (ee) United States Route 220 to 
                        United States Route 74 near Rockingham;
                          (ff) United States Route 74 to United 
                        States Route 76 near Whiteville;
                          (gg) United States Route 74/76 to the 
                        South Carolina State line in Brunswick 
                        County; and
                          (hh) South Carolina State line to 
                        Charleston, South Carolina.
          * * * * * * *
          (18) Corridor from Indianapolis, Indiana, through 
        Evansville, Indiana, Memphis, Tennessee, Arkansas, 
        Shreveport/Bossier, Louisiana, [and] to Houston, Texas, 
        and to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border 
        between the United States and Mexico.
          * * * * * * *
          (20) United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, 
        Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of 
        Texarkana, Texas, and to include the Corpus Christi 
        Northside Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing 
        intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate 
        Route 37 to United States Route 181.
          * * * * * * *
          (22) The Alameda Transportation Corridor along 
        Alameda Street from the entrance to the ports of Los 
        Angeles and Long Beach to Interstate 10, Los Angeles, 
        California.
          (23) The Interstate Route 35 Corridor from Laredo, 
        Texas, through Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to Wichita, 
        Kansas, to Kansas City, Kansas/Missouri, to Des Moines, 
        Iowa, to Minneapolis, Minnesota, to Duluth, Minnesota.
          (24) The Dalton Highway from Deadhorse, Alaska to 
        Fairbanks, Alaska.
          (25) State Route 168 (South Battlefield Boulevard), 
        Virginia, from the Great Bridge Bypass to the North 
        Carolina State line.
          (26) The CANNAMEX CORRIDOR from Nogales, Arizona, 
        through Las Vegas, Nevada, to Salt Lake City, Utah, to 
        Idaho Falls, Idaho, to Great Falls, Montana, to the 
        Canadian Border as follows:
                  (A) In the State of Arizona, the CANAMEX 
                CORRIDOR shall generally follow--
                          (i) I-19 from Nogales to Tucson;
                          (ii) I-10 from Tucson to Phoenix; and
                          (iii) United States Route 93 from 
                        Phoenix to the Nevada Border.
                  (B) In the State of Nevada, the CANAMEX 
                CORRIDOR shall follow--
                          (i) United States Route 93 from the 
                        Arizona Border to Las Vegas; and
                          (ii) I-15 from Las Vegas to the Utah 
                        Border.
                  (C) From the Utah Border to the Canadian 
                Border, the CANAMEX CORRIDOR shall follow I-15.
          * * * * * * *
  (e) Provisions Applicable to Corridors.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Feasibility studies.--The Secretary, in 
        cooperation with the affected State or States, may 
        prepare feasibility and design studies, as necessary, 
        for those corridors for which such studies have not 
        been prepared. A feasibility study may be conducted 
        under this subsection with respect to the corridor 
        described in subsection (c)(2), relating to Avenue of 
        the Saints, to determine the feasibility of an adjunct 
        to the Avenue of the Saints serving the southern St. 
        Louis metropolitan area and connecting with I-55 in the 
        vicinity of Route A in Jefferson County, Missouri. A 
        study may be conducted under this subsection to 
        determine the feasibility of constructing a more direct 
        limited access highway between Peoria and Chicago, 
        Illinois. A feasibility study may be conducted under 
        this subsection to identify routes that will expedite 
        future emergency evacuations of coastal areas of 
        Louisiana.
          * * * * * * *
          (5) Inclusion of certain route segments on interstate 
        system.--Where not a part of the Interstate System, the 
        routes referred to in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of 
        subsection (c)(5)(B) (other than the portion located in 
        the State of West Virginia), in subsection (c)(9), and 
        in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) are hereby 
        designated future parts of the Interstate System. Any 
        segment of such routes shall become a part of the 
        Interstate System at such time as the Secretary 
        determines that the segment--
                  (A) meets the Interstate System design 
                standards approved by the Secretary under 
                section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code; 
                and
                  (B) connects to an existing Interstate System 
                segment and functions as a safe and usable 
                segment.
  (f) High Priority Segments.--Highway segments of the 
corridors referred to in subsection (c) which are described in 
this subsection are high priority segments eligible for 
assistance under this section. Subject to subsection (g)(2), 
there is authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust 
Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) for fiscal years 
1992 through 1997 to carry out a project on each such segment 
the amount listed for each such segment:

      

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       AMOUNT in
                      CITY/STATE                            HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS                    millions 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........  Pennsylvania................  For the segment described in item 6 of this table and up             
                                            to $11,000,000 for upgrading U.S. 220 High Priority and             
                                            the Appalachian Thruway Corridor between State College              
                                            and I-80................................................       50.7 
2..........   Alabama, Georgia,                                                                                 
              Mississippi, Tennessee.....  Upgrading of the East-West Corridor along Rt. 72 and up              
                                            to $1,500,000 from the State of Alabama's share of the              
                                            project for modification of the Keller Memorial Bridge              
                                            in Decatur, Alabama, to a pedestrian structure..........       25.4 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
26.........   Indiana, Kentucky,                                                                                
              Tennessee..................  To improve the Bloomington, Indiana, to [Newberry]                   
                                            Evansville, Indiana, segment of the Indianapolis,                   
                                            Indiana, to Memphis, Tennessee, high priority corridor..       23.7 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      

SEC. 1106. RURAL AND URBAN ACCESS PROJECTS.

  (a) Rural Access Projects.--
          (1) Purpose.--The purpose of this subsection is to 
        provide funds for projects that ensure better rural 
        access and that promote economic development in rural 
        areas.
          (2) Authorization of projects.--The Secretary is 
        authorized to carry out rural access projects described 
        in this paragraph. Subject to paragraph (3), there is 
        authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust 
        Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) for fiscal 
        years 1992 through 1997 to carry out each such project 
        the amount listed for each such project:
      

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       AMOUNT in
                      CITY/STATE                                  RURAL ACCESS                         millions 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1........  Cadiz, Ohio.................  Improvements of Short Creek Highway from Cadiz, Ohio to              
                                            Rayland, Ohio...........................................        2.5 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 17........  Lake Charles, Louisiana.....  Construction of roads and bridge to provide access to                
                                            Rose Bluff Industrial Area, Lake Charles, LA............       [4.1]
                                                                                                            8.8 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 34........  Illinois....................  [Resurfacing IL Rt. 1 from Cave-In-Rock to north of                  
                                            Omaha] Bel-Air Road improvement from south of Carmi to              
                                            State Route 141 in southeastern White County............        1.8 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 52........  Pennsylvania................  To construct an access road in Bedford Springs,                      
                                            Pennsylvania, along Old U.S. 220 to the Springs Project             
                                            and to construct other facilities to facilitate movement            
                                            of traffic within the site and construction of a parking            
                                            facility to be associated therewith or other projects in            
                                            the counties of Bedford, Blair, Fulton, [and Huntington]            
                                            Franklin, and Huntingdon, as selected by the State of               
                                            Pennsylvania............................................       19.7 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 61........  Lubbock, Texas..............  Initiate feasibility and route studies and preliminary               
                                            engineering and design for highway to connect Lubbock               
                                            [with Interstate 20] with Interstate 10 through                     
                                            Interstate 20 and Interstate 27 north of Amarillo to the            
                                            Texas/Oklahoma border...................................        2.9 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 71........  Chautauqua County, New York.  Construct 2 additional expressway lanes and other                    
                                            improvements from Chautauqua Lake Bridge to Pennsylvania            
                                            Border..................................................       17.0 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 75........  Pennsylvania................  [Widen 14-mile segment of U.S. 15 from 2 to 4 lanes] Road            
                                            improvements on a 14-mile segment of U.S. Route 15 in               
                                            Lycoming County, Pennsylvania...........................       13.8 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 93........  New Mexico..................  [Raton-Clayton Rd., Clayton, New Mexico] U.S. Rt. 64/87              
                                            from Raton, New Mexico, through Clayton to the Texas-New            
                                            Mexico State line.......................................        9.3 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
111........  [Parker County] Parker and                                                                         
              Tarrant Counties, Texas                                                                           
              (SH199)....................  Upgrade existing highway [to four-] in Tarrant County, to            
                                            freeway standards and in Parker County to a 4-lane                  
                                            divided highway.........................................       33.5 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      
  (b) Urban Access and Urban Mobility Projects.--
          (1) Purpose.--The purpose of this subsection is to 
        provide funds for projects that enhance urban access 
        and urban mobility.
          (2) Authorization of projects.--The Secretary is 
        authorized to carry out urban access and urban mobility 
        projects described in this paragraph. Subject to 
        paragraph (3), there is authorized to be appropriated 
        out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 
        Transit Account) for fiscal years 1992 through 1997 to 
        carry out each such project the amount listed for each 
        such project:
      

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       AMOUNT in
                      CITY/STATE                            URBAN ACCESS & MOBILITY                    millions 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.........   Santa Ana, California......  Bristol Street Project...................................        4.1 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 9.........   New York, New York.........  [Improvements on Miller Highway in New York City, NY]                
                                            Projects in New York City, New York (other than                     
                                            improvements to the Miller Highway).....................       15.6 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
13.........   Joliet, Illinois...........  For rehabilitation of Houbolt Road from Jefferson Street             
                                            to Joliet Jr. College [and construction and interchange             
                                            at Houbolt Road and I-80]...............................        1.0 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
36.........   Compton, California........  [For a grade separation project at W. Alameda Street and             
                                            the Mealy St. Corridor] For grade separations and other             
                                            improvements in the city of Compton, California.........        6.6 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
52.........  Chicago, Illinois...........  [Right-of-way preservation projects (Eisenhower &                    
                                            Stevenson Connector)] Reconstruct the Michigan Avenue               
                                            viaduct.................................................        4.8 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      

SEC. 1107. INNOVATIVE PROJECTS.

  (a) In General.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
assistance for highway projects demonstrating innovative 
techniques of highway construction and finance. Each State in 
which 1 of the projects authorized by subsection (b) is located 
shall select and use, in carrying out such project, innovative 
techniques in highway construction or finance. Such techniques 
may include state-of-the-art technology for pavement, safety, 
or other aspects of highway construction; innovative financing 
techniques; or accelerated procedures for construction.
  (b) Authorization of Projects.--The Secretary is authorized 
to carry out the innovative projects described in this 
subsection. Subject to subsection (c), there is authorized to 
be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
Mass Transit Account) for fiscal years 1992 through 1997 to 
carry out each such project the amount listed for each such 
project:

      

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       AMOUNT in
                      CITY/STATE                              INNOVATIVE PROJECTS                      millions 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1........  Cadiz, Ohio.................  Construction of 4-lane Limited Access Highway from Cadiz,            
                                            OH to Interstate 70 Interchange at St. Clairsville, OH              
                                            along U.S. Rt. 250......................................       20.0 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 19........  [Water Street,] Pennsylvania  Construction of a 2 lane bypass around the Borough of                
                                            Water Street on U.S. 22 of Pennsylvania, or other                   
                                            projects in the counties of Bedford, Blair, Centre,                 
                                            Franklin, and Huntingdon as selected by the State of                
                                            Pennsylvania............................................        8.0 
 20........  [Holidaysburg,] Pennsylvania  To relocate U.S. 22 around the Borough of Holidaysburg,              
                                            Pennsylvania, or other projects in the counties of                  
                                            Bedford, Blair, Centre, Franklin, and Huntingdon as                 
                                            selected by the State of Pennsylvania...................       52.0 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 24........  Pennsylvania................  To relocate section of railroad tracks between                       
                                            Hagerstown, Maryland and Shippensburg, Pennsylvania to              
                                            eliminate 23 at-grade crossings and to make connection              
                                            to an existing railroad line and for the purchase,                  
                                            rehabilitation, and improvement of any similar existing             
                                            facility within a 150-mile radius of such project, as               
                                            selected by the State of Pennsylvania...................       14.4 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 29........  Blacksburg, Montgomery                                                                             
              County, Virginia...........  Construction of 6 mile 4 lane highway to demonstrate                 
                                            methods of facilitating public and private participation            
                                            in intelligent/vehicle highway systems..................        5.9 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 35........  Alabama.....................  To construct a 4-lane access controlled highway [to                  
                                            bypass Montgomery, Alabama and connect I-65 and I-85]               
                                            beginning on U.S. Route 80 west of Montgomery, Alabama,             
                                            and connecting to I-65 south of Montgomery and I-85 east            
                                            of Montgomery...........................................       11.8 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 49........  Suffolk County, New York....  Evaluate suitability of composting and recycling for use             
                                            on Federal-aid highway medians and perimeters and                   
                                            provide funds to the towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead,                
                                            Smithtown, East Hampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and              
                                            Southampton for the purchase of vehicles to meet the                
                                            transportation needs of the elderly and persons with                
                                            disabilities............................................        2.0 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 52........  Pennsylvania................  Design, engineer and construct [2 exits off Interstate 81            
                                            at Wilkes-Barre and Mountaintop, Pennsylvania] or                   
                                            rehabilitate (or both) highway and transportation                   
                                            infrastructure projects within 30 miles of I-81 or I-80             
                                            in northeastern Pennsylvania............................       16.7 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 61........  [Mojave] Victorville,                                                                              
              California.................  Widen and reconstruct Mojave bridge to CALTRANS height               
                                            standards...............................................        1.8 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 68........  [Portland/S. Portland,]                                                                            
              Maine......................  Portland-S. Portland Bridge and improvements to the                  
                                            Carlton Bridge in Bath-Woolworth........................      134.5 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
 76........  Tennessee...................  Improved access to I-81/Industrial Park South                        
                                            [Interchange], Sullivan County, Tennessee via                       
                                            improvements at I-181/Eastern Star Road and I-81/                   
                                            Kendrick Creek Road.....................................        5.8 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
100........  Arkansas....................  North Belt Freeway Project, [Thornton] Little Rock,                  
                                            Arkansas................................................        8.9 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
113........  Durham County, North                                                                               
              Carolina...................  Accelerated construction of a four-lane divided freeway              
                                            on Route 147, including the interchange at I-85.........       38.3 
114........  Corpus Christi to Angleton,                                                                        
              Texas......................  [Construct new multi-lane freeway] Construct a 4-lane                
                                            divided highway.........................................       41.7 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
193........  Corning, New York...........  Additional funding for Corning Bypass (Route 1), except              
                                            any excess funds from the $13.4 million in total funding            
                                            for this project shall be available for construction of             
                                            two additional expressway lanes and other improvements              
                                            from Chautauqua Lake Bridge to Pennsylvania border on               
                                            Route 17................................................        2.4 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
196........  [Orlando,] Florida..........  [Land & right-of-way acquisition & guideway construction             
                                            for magnetic limitation project] One or more regionally             
                                            significant, intercity ground transportation projects...       97.5 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      

SEC. 1108. PRIORITY INTERMODAL PROJECTS.

  (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide for 
the construction of innovative intermodal transportation 
projects.
  (b) Authorization of Priority Projects.--The Secretary is 
authorized to carry out the priority intermodal transportation 
projects described in this subsection. Subject to subsection 
(c), there is authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway 
Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) for fiscal 
years 1992 through 1997 to carry out each such project the 
amount listed for each such project:
      

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       AMOUNT in
                      CITY/STATE                              INTERMODAL PROJECTS                      millions 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.........  Long Beach, California......  Interchange at Terminal Island Freeway and Ocean                     
                                            Boulevard...............................................       11.8 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
12.........  Buffalo, New York...........  Construction of Buffalo River/Gateway Tunnel Project and             
                                            the Crossroads Arena Project............................       20.2 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
31.........  Los Angeles, California.....  [To improve ground access from Sepulveda Blvd. to Los                
                                            Angeles, California] For the Los Angeles International              
                                            Airport central terminal ramp access project,                       
                                            $3,500,000; for the widening of Aviation Boulevard south            
                                            of Imperial Highway, $3,500,000; for the widening of                
                                            Aviation Boulevard north of Imperial Highway,                       
                                            $1,000,000; and for transportation systems management               
                                            improvements in the vicinity of the Sepulveda Boulevard/            
                                            Los Angeles International Airport tunnel, $950,000......        8.95
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      

             PART B--NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS FUND ACT

SEC. 1301. SHORT TITLE.

  This part may be cited as the ``Symms National Recreational 
Trails Act of 1991''.

SEC. 1302. NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS FUNDING PROGRAM.

  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (c) State Eligibility.--
          (1) Transitional provision.--Until the date that is 3 
        years after the date of enactment of this part, a State 
        shall be eligible to receive moneys under this [Act] 
        part only if such State's application proposes to use 
        the moneys as provided in subsection (e).
          (2) Permanent provision.--On and after the date that 
        is three years after the date of the enactment of this 
        [Act] part, a State shall be eligible to receive moneys 
        under this part only if--
                  (A) a recreational trail advisory board on 
                which both motorized and nonmotorized 
                recreational trail users are represented exists 
                within the State;
                  [(B) in the case of a State that imposes a 
                tax on nonhighway recreational fuel, the State 
                by law reserves a reasonable estimation of the 
                revenues from that tax for use in providing and 
                maintaining recreational trails;]
                  [(C)] (B) the Governor of the State has 
                designated the State official or officials who 
                will be responsible for administering moneys 
                received under this [Act] part; and
                  [(D)] (C) the State's application proposes to 
                use moneys received under this part as provided 
                in subsection (e).
          (3) Sixth year provision.--On and after the date that 
        is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this 
        part, a State shall be eligible to receive moneys under 
        this part in a fiscal year only if the State agrees to 
        expend from non-Federal sources for carrying out 
        projects under this part an amount equal to 20 percent 
        of the amount received by the State under this part in 
        such fiscal year.
  (d) Allocation of Moneys in the Fund.--
          (1) Administrative costs.--No more than 3 percent of 
        the expenditures made annually from the Fund may be 
        used to pay the cost to the Secretary for--
                  (A) approving applications of States for 
                moneys under this part;
                  (B) paying expenses of the National 
                Recreational Trails Advisory Committee;
                  (C) conducting national surveys of nonhighway 
                recreational fuel consumption by State, for use 
                in making determinations and estimations 
                pursuant to this part; [and]
                  (D) contracting for services with other land 
                management agencies; and
                  [(D)] (E) if any such funds remain 
                unexpended, research on methods to accommodate 
                multiple trail uses and increase the 
                compatibility of those uses, information 
                dissemination, technical assistance, and 
                preparation of a national trail plan as 
                required by the National Trails System Act (16 
                U.S.C. 1241 et al).
  (e) Use of Allocated Moneys.--
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (4) Assured access to funds.--Except as provided 
        under [paragraphs (6) and (8)(B)] paragraphs (7) and 
        (9)(B), not less than 30 percent of the moneys received 
        annually by a State under this part shall be reserved 
        for uses relating to motorized recreation, and not less 
        than 30 percent of those moneys shall be reserved for 
        uses relating to non-motorized recreation.
          (5) Environmental mitigation.--
                  (A) Requirement.--To the extent practicable 
                and consistent with other requirements of this 
                section, in complying with paragraph (4), a 
                State shall give priority to project proposals 
                which provide for the redesign, reconstruction, 
                nonroutine maintenance, or relocation of trails 
                in order to mitigate and minimize the impact to 
                the natural environment.
                  (B) Compliance.--The State shall receive 
                guidance for determining compliance with 
                subparagraph (A) from the recreational trail 
                advisory board satisfying the requirements of 
                subsection (c)(2)(A).
          [(5)] (6) Diversified trail use.--
                  (A) Requirement.--To the extent practicable 
                and consistent with other requirements of this 
                section, a State shall expend moneys received 
                under this part in a manner that gives 
                preference to project proposals which--
                          (i) provide for the greatest number 
                        of compatible recreational purposes 
                        including, but not limited to, those 
                        described under the definition of 
                        ``recreational trail'' in subsection 
                        (g)(5); or
                          (ii) provide for innovative 
                        recreational trail corridor sharing to 
                        accommodate motorized and non-motorized 
                        recreational trail use.
                This paragraph shall remain effective until 
                such time as a State has allocated not less 
                than 40 percent of moneys received under this 
                part in the aforementioned manner.
                  (B) Compliance.--The State shall receive 
                guidance for determining compliance with 
                subparagraph (A) from the recreational trail 
                advisory board satisfying the requirements of 
                subsection (c)(2)(A).
          [(6) Small state exclusion.--] (7) Exclusions._
                  (A) Small State._Any State with a total land 
                area of less than 3,500,000 acres, and in which 
                nonhighway recreational fuel use accounts for 
                less than 1 percent of all such fuel use in the 
                United States, shall be exempted from the 
                requirements of paragraph (4) of this 
                subsection upon application to the Secretary by 
                the State demonstrating that it meets the 
                conditions of this paragraph.
                  (B) Best interest of a state.--Any State 
                which determines based on trail needs 
                identified in its State Comprehensive Outdoor 
                Recreation Plan that it is in the best interest 
                of the State to be exempt from the requirements 
                of paragraph (4) may apply to the Secretary for 
                such an exemption. Before approving or 
                disapproving an application for such an 
                exemption, the Secretary shall publish in the 
                Federal Register notice of receipt of the 
                application and provide an opportunity for 
                public comment on the application.
          * * * * * * *
          [(7)] (8) Continuing recreational use.--At the option 
        of each State, moneys made available pursuant to this 
        part may be treated as Land and Water Conservation Fund 
        moneys for the purposes of section 6(f)(3) of the Land 
        and Water Conservation Fund Act.
          [(8)] (9) Return of moneys not expended.--
                  (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
                moneys paid to a State that are not expended or 
                dedicated to a specific project within 4 years 
                after receipt for the purposes stated in this 
                subsection shall be returned to the Fund and 
                shall thereafter be reallocated under the 
                formula stated in subsection (d).
                  (B) If approved by the State recreational 
                trail advisory board satisfying the 
                requirements of subsection (c)(2)(A), the State 
                may be exempted from the requirements of 
                paragraph (4) [and expended or committed to 
                projects for purposes otherwise stated in this 
                subsection for a period not to extend beyond 4 
                years after receipt, after which any remaining 
                moneys not expended or dedicated shall be 
                returned to the Fund and shall thereafter be 
                reallocated under the formula stated in 
                subsection (d)].

SEC. 1303. NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

  (a) Establishment.--There is established the National 
Recreational Trails Advisory Committee.
  (b) Members.--There shall be [11] 12 members of the advisory 
committee, consisting of--
          (1) 8 members appointed by the Secretary from 
        nominations submitted by recreational trail user 
        organizations, one each representing the following 
        recreational trail uses:
                  (A) hiking,
                  (B) cross-country skiing,
                  (C) off-highway motorcycling,
                  (D) snowmobiling,
                  (E) horseback riding,
                  (F) all-terrain vehicle riding,
                  (G) bicycling, and
                  (H) four-wheel driving;
          (2) 1 member appointed by the Secretary representing 
        individuals with disabilities;
          [(2)] (3) an appropriate official of government with 
        a background in science or natural resources 
        management, including any official of State or local 
        government, designated by the Secretary;
           [(3)] (4) 1 member appointed by the Secretary from 
        nominations submitted by water trail user 
        organizations; and
          [(4)] (5) 1 member appointed by the Secretary from 
        nominations submitted by hunting and fishing enthusiast 
        organizations.
          * * * * * * *

                        TITLE II--HIGHWAY SAFETY

                 PART A--HIGHWAY SAFETY GRANT PROGRAMS

SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.

  This part may be cited as the ``Highway Safety Act of 1991''.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 2005. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  For purposes of carrying out the provisions of title 23, 
United States Code, the following sums are authorized to be 
appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 
Transit Account):
          (1) NHTSA highway safety programs.--For carrying out 
        section 402 of title 23, United States Code, by the 
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
        $126,000,000 for fiscal year 1992 [and], $171,000,000 
        for each of fiscal years 1993, 1994[, 1995, 1996, and 
        1997] and 1995, and $146,000,000 for each of fiscal 
        years 1996 and 1997.
          * * * * * * *

           TITLE III--FEDERAL TRANSIT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1991

SEC. 3001. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Federal Transit Act 
Amendments of 1991''.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 3031. NEW JERSEY URBAN CORE PROJECT.

  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Elements of Urban Core Project.--For the purposes of this 
section, the New Jersey Urban Core Project consists of the 
following elements: Secaucus Transfer, Kearny Connection, 
Waterfront Connection, Northeast Corridor Signal System, Hudson 
River Waterfront Transportation System (including corridor 
connections to and within the city of Bayonne), Newark-Newark 
International Airport-Elizabeth Transit Link, a rail connection 
between Penn Station Newark and Broad Street Station, Newark, 
New York Penn Station Concourse, the West Shore Line, and the 
equipment needed to operate revenue service associated with 
improvements made by the project. The project includes elements 
advanced with 100 percent non-Federal funds.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 3035. MISCELLANEOUS MULTIYEAR CONTRACTS.

  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (c) North Bay Ferry Service.--No later than April 30, 1992, 
the Secretary shall negotiate and sign a multiyear grant 
agreement with the City of Vallejo, California, which includes 
[$8,000,000 in fiscal year 1992 and $9,000,000 in fiscal year 
1993] $17,000,000 from funds made available under section 
3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act to carry out capital 
improvements under the North Bay Ferry Service Demonstration 
Program.
  (d) Staten Island-Midtown Manhattan Ferry Service.--No later 
than April 30, 1992, the Secretary shall negotiate and sign a 
multiyear grant agreement with the New York City Department of 
Transportation in New York, New York, which includes 
[$1,000,000 in fiscal year 1992 and $11,000,000 in fiscal year 
1993] $12,000,000 from funds made available under section 
3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act to carry out capital 
improvements under the Staten Island-Midtown Ferry Service 
Demonstration Program.
  (e) Central Area Circulator Project.--No later than April 30, 
1992, the Secretary shall negotiate and sign a multiyear grant 
agreement with the City of Chicago, Illinois, which includes 
$260,000,000 from funds made available under section 3(k)(1)(B) 
of the Federal Transit Act to carry out the construction of the 
locally preferred alternative for the Central Area Circulator 
Project. [Such grant agreement shall provide that the Federal 
share of the cost of such project shall be paid by the 
Secretary from amounts provided under such section 3(k)(1)(B) 
as follows:
          [(1) Not less than $21,000,000 for fiscal year 1992.
          [(2) Not less than $55,000,000 for fiscal year 1993.
          [(3) Not less than $70,000,000 for fiscal year 1994.
          [(4) Not less than $62,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.
          [(5) Not less than a total of $52,000,000 for fiscal 
        years 1996 and 1997.]
  (f) Salt Lake City Light Rail Project.--No later than August 
30, 1992, the Secretary shall negotiate and sign a multiyear 
grant agreement with the Utah Transit Authority, which includes 
$131,000,000 from funds made available under section 3(k)(1)(B) 
of the Federal Transit Act to carry out the construction of the 
initial segment of the locally preferred alternative for the 
Salt Lake City Light Rail Project, including related high-
occupancy vehicle lane, intermodal corridor design, feeder bus 
and other system related costs.
  (g) Los Angeles-San Diego (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Improvement 
Project.--No later than April 30, 1992, the Secretary shall 
negotiate and sign a multiyear grant agreement with the Los 
Angeles-San Diego Rail Corridor Agency which includes [not less 
than $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1992 and not less than 
$5,000,000 in each of fiscal years 1993 and 1994] $20,000,000 
from funds made available under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the 
Federal Transit Act to provide for capital improvements to the 
rail corridor between Los Angeles and San Diego, California.
  (h) San Jose-Gilroy-Hollister Commuter Rail Project.--No 
later than April 30, 1992, the Secretary shall negotiate and 
sign a multiyear grant agreement with the responsible operating 
entity for the San Francisco Peninsula Commute Service which 
includes, from funds made available under section 3(k)(1)(B) of 
the Federal Transit Act, $13,000,000 for capital improvements 
and trackage rights related to the extension of commuter rail 
service from San Jose, through Gilroy, to Hollister, 
California. The Secretary shall allocate to the Santa Clara 
County Transit District in fiscal year 1992, from funds made 
available under such section 3(k)(1)(B), $8,000,000 for the 
purpose of a one-time purchase of additional trackage rights 
and/or purchase of right-of-way between the existing termini in 
San Jose and Gilroy, California. In connection with the 
purchase of such additional trackage rights and/or purchase of 
right-of-way, the Secretary shall either approve a finding of 
no significant impact, or approve a final environmental impact 
statement and issue a record of decision no later than [July 1, 
1994] September 30, 1996. No later than [August 1, 1994,] 
October 31, 1996, the Secretary shall negotiate and sign a 
grant agreement with the Santa Clara County Transit District 
which includes the funds made available under this section for 
the purchase of additional trackage rights and/or purchase of 
right-of-way.
  (i) Dallas Light Rail Project.--No later than April 30, 1992, 
the Secretary shall negotiate and sign a multiyear grant 
agreement with Dallas Area Rapid Transit which includes 
$160,000,000 from funds made available under section 3(k)(1)(B) 
of the Federal Transit Act to carry out the construction of the 
locally preferred alternative for the initial [6.4 miles] 9.6 
miles and [10 stations] not to exceed 14 stations of the South 
Oak Cliff light rail line. Non-Federal funds used to acquire 
rights-of-way and to plan, design, and construct any of the 
elements of [such light rail line] the program of interrelated 
projects identified in section 5328(c)(1)(G) of title 49, 
United States Code, on or after August 13, 1983, may be used to 
meet the non-Federal share funding requirement for financing 
construction of any [of such elements] element of such program 
of interrelated projects.
  (k) Kansas City Light Rail Project.--No later than April 30, 
1992, the Secretary shall negotiate and sign a multiyear grant 
agreement with the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority 
which includes, from funds made available under section 
3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, [$1,500,000 in fiscal 
year 1992, and $4,400,000 in fiscal year 1993] $5,900,000 to 
provide for the completion of alternatives analysis and 
preliminary engineering for the Kansas City Light Rail Project.
  (l) [Orlando Streetcar (OSCAR) Downtown Trolley Project.--No 
later than April 30, 1992, the] Downtown Orlando Circulator 
Project.--The Secretary shall negotiate and sign a multiyear 
grant agreement with the City of Orlando, Florida, which 
includes, from funds made available under section 3(k)(1)(B) of 
the Federal Transit Act, $5,000,000 to provide for the 
completion of alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering 
[for the Orlando Streetcar (OSCAR) Downtown Trolley Project.] 
and the completion of final design, construction, land and 
equipment acquisition, and related activities for the Downtown 
Orlando Circulator project.
  (m) Detroit Light Rail Project.--No later than April 30, 
1992, the Secretary shall negotiate and enter into a multiyear 
grant agreement with the city of Detroit, Michigan, which 
includes, from funds made available under section 3(k)(1)(B) of 
the Federal Transit Act, [not less than $10,000,000 for fiscal 
year 1992, and not less than $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1993,] 
$20,000,000 to provide for the completion of alternatives 
analysis and preliminary engineering for the Detroit Light Rail 
Project.
  [(o) Long Beach Metro Link Fixed Rail Project.--No later than 
April 30, 1992, the Secretary shall negotiate and sign a 
multiyear grant agreement with the Los Angeles County 
Transportation Commission which includes $4,000,000 from funds 
made available under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit 
Act to provide for the completion of alternatives analysis and 
preliminary engineering for the Metro Link Project in Long 
Beach, California.]
  (p) Lakewood-Freehold-Matawan or Jamesburg Rail Project.--No 
later than April 30, 1992, the Secretary shall negotiate and 
sign a multiyear grant agreement with the New Jersey Transit 
Corporation, which includes, from funds made available to the 
Northeastern New Jersey urbanized area under section 3(k)(1)(B) 
of the Federal Transit Act, [$1,800,000 in fiscal year 1992 and 
$3,000,000 in each of fiscal years 1993 and 1994] $7,800,000 to 
provide for the completion of alternatives analysis, 
preliminary engineering, and environmental impact statement for 
the Lakewood-Freehold-Matawan or Jamesburg Rail Project.
  (r) Charlotte Light Rail Study.--No later than April 30, 
1992, the Secretary shall negotiate and sign a multiyear grant 
agreement with the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, which 
includes, from funds made available under section 3(k)(1)(B) of 
the Federal Transit Act, [$125,000 in fiscal year 1992 and 
$375,000 in fiscal year 1993] $500,000 to provide for the 
completion of systems planning and alternatives analysis for a 
priority light rail corridor in the Charlotte metropolitan 
area.
  (u) San Diego [Mid Coast Light Rail Project.--No later than 
April 30, 1992, the] Metropolitan Transit Improvement 
Program.--The Secretary shall negotiate and sign a multiyear 
grant agreement with the San Diego Metropolitan Transit 
Development Board which includes, from funds made available 
under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act[, 
$2,000,000 in fiscal year 1992, $5,000,000 in fiscal year 1993, 
and $20,000,000 in fiscal year 1994, to provide for the 
completion of alternatives analysis and the final environmental 
impact statement, and to purchase right-of-way, for the San 
Diego Mid Coast Light Rail Project.] $27,000,000 for the 
integrated project financing of the San Diego Mid Coast and 
Mission Valley East Corridor fixed guideway projects.
  (z) Bus Purchase for Eureka Springs, Arkansas.--[No later 
than April 30, 1992, the Secretary shall enter into a grant 
agreement with Eureka Springs Transit for $63,600 for fiscal 
year 1992 from funds made available under section 3(k)(1)(C) of 
the Federal Transit Act to provide for the purchase of an 
electrically powered bus which is accessible to and usable by 
individuals with disabilities.] From funds made available under 
section 5309(m)(1)(C) of title 49, United States Code, the 
Secretary shall make available $63,600 to Eureka Springs 
Transit for the purchase of an alternative fueled vehicle which 
is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
          * * * * * * *
  (nn) Baltimore-Washington Transportation Improvements 
Program.--The Secretary shall carry out the Baltimore-
Washington Transportation Improvements Program as follows:
          (1) Baltimore-central light rail extension.--By 
        entering into a full funding grant agreement with the 
        Mass Transit Administration of the Maryland Department 
        of Transportation to carry out construction of locally 
        preferred alternatives for the Hunt Valley, Baltimore-
        Washington International Airport and Penn Station 
        extensions to the light rail line in Baltimore, 
        Maryland. The grant agreement under this paragraph 
        shall provide that the Federal share shall be paid from 
        amounts provided under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the 
        Federal Transit Act [as follows:
                  [(A) Not less than $30,000,000 for fiscal 
                year 1993.
                  [(B) Not less than $30,000,000 for fiscal 
                year 1994.]
        and shall be $60,000,000.
          (2) MARC extensions.--By entering into a full funding 
        grant agreement with the Mass Transit Administration of 
        the Maryland Department of Transportation for service 
        extensions and other improvements, including extensions 
        of the MARC commuter rail system to Frederick and mass 
        transportation improvements to the Waldorf area, 
        planning and engineering, purchase of rolling stock and 
        station improvements and expansions. The transit 
        improvements in the corridor from the Waldorf area to 
        the Washington, D.C. area shall be based on the locally 
        preferred alternatives that result from the Southern 
        Maryland Mass Transportation Alternatives Study of the 
        Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland and shall 
        include any additional work needed on that study, 
        detailed planning and engineering to be carried out by 
        the Maryland Department of Transportation in 
        conjunction with the Tri-County Council, advanced land 
        acquisition in the transit corridor, and implementation 
        of interim and long-range transit improvements in the 
        transit corridor. The grant agreement under this 
        paragraph shall be paid from amounts provided under 
        section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act [as 
        follows:
                  [(A) Not less than $60,000,000 for fiscal 
                year 1993.
                  [(B) Not less than $50,000,000 for fiscal 
                year 1994.
                  [(C) Not less than $50,000,000 for fiscal 
                year 1995.]
        and shall total $160,000,000.
          (3) Largo extension.--By entering into a full funding 
        grant agreement with the State of Maryland or its 
        designee to provide alternative analysis, the 
        preparation of an environmental impact statement and 
        preliminary engineering for a proposed rail transit 
        project to be located in the corridor between the 
        Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Addison 
        Road rail station and Largo, Maryland. The grant 
        agreement under this paragraph shall provide that the 
        Federal share shall be paid from amounts provided under 
        section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act in an 
        amount not less than $5,000,000 [for fiscal year 1993].
          * * * * * * *
  (ww) Honolulu Rapid Transit Project.--No later than April 30, 
1992, the Secretary shall negotiate and sign a multiyear grant 
agreement with the City and County of Honolulu which includes 
[$618,000,000] $541,100,000 from funds made available under 
section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act to carry out the 
construction of the locally preferred alternative of a 17.3 
mile fixed guideway system.
          * * * * * * *
  (aaa) Dulles Corridor Rail Project.--[No later than April 30, 
1992, the] The Secretary shall negotiate and sign a multiyear 
grant agreement with the State of Virginia, or its assignee, 
which includes, from funds made available under section 
3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, $6,000,000 to provide 
for [the completion of alternatives analysis and preliminary 
engineering for] a rail corridor from the West Falls Church 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority rail station to 
Dulles International Airport.
  [(bbb) Puget Sound Core Rapid Transit Project.--Not later 
than April 30, 1992, the Secretary shall negotiate and sign a 
multiyear grant agreement with the municipality of metropolitan 
Seattle, Washington, which includes, from funds made available 
under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, 
$300,000,000 for the Puget Sound Core Rapid Transit Project.]
  (bbb) Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Project.--From 
funds made available under section 5309(m)(1)(B) of title 49, 
United States Code, the Secretary shall make available 
$300,000,000 for the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit 
Project.
          * * * * * * *
  (fff) Canal Street Corridor Light Rail, New Orleans, 
Louisiana.--[No later than April 30, 1992, the] The Secretary 
shall [negotiate and sign a grant agreement with the city of 
New Orleans, Louisiana, which includes] make available, from 
funds made available under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal 
Transit Act, $4,800,000 to provide for the completion of 
alternatives analysis, preliminary engineering, and an 
environmental impact statement for the Canal Street Corridor 
Light Rail System in New Orleans, Louisiana.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


                      TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

          * * * * * * *

             SUBTITLE III--GENERAL AND INTERMODAL PROGRAMS

          * * * * * * *

                    CHAPTER 53--MASS TRANSPORTATION

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 5303. Metropolitan planning

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Plan and Program Factors.--In developing plans and 
programs under this section and sections 5304-5306 of this 
title, each metropolitan planning organization at least shall 
consider the following factors:
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (16) recreational travel and tourism.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 5307. Block grants

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Grant Recipient Requirements.--A recipient may receive a 
grant in a fiscal year only if--
          (1) the recipient, within the time the Secretary 
        prescribes, submits a final program of projects 
        prepared under subsection (c) of this section and a 
        certification for that fiscal year that the recipient 
        (including a person receiving amounts from a chief 
        executive officer of a State under this section)--
                  (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
                  (J)(i) will expend for each fiscal year for 
                mass transportation security projects, 
                including increased lighting in or adjacent to 
                a mass transportation system (including bus 
                stops, subway stations, parking lots, and 
                garages), increased camera surveillance of an 
                area in or adjacent to that system, providing 
                an emergency telephone line to contact law 
                enforcement or security personnel in an area in 
                or adjacent to that system, employing law 
                enforcement or security personnel in areas 
                within or adjacent to such systems, and any 
                other project intended to increase the security 
                and safety of an existing or planned mass 
                transportation system, at least one percent of 
                the amount the recipient receives for each 
                fiscal year under section 5336 of this title; 
                or
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 5309. Discretionary grants and loans

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (g) Letters of Intent, Full Financing Grant Agreements, and 
Early Systems Work Agreements.--
          (1) Letters of intent.--(A) The Secretary of 
        Transportation may issue a letter of intent to an 
        applicant announcing an intention to obligate, for a 
        project under this section, an amount from future 
        available budget authority specified in law that is not 
        more than the amount stipulated as the financial 
        participation of the Secretary in the project. The 
        amount shall be sufficient to complete at least an 
        operable segment when a letter is issued for a fixed 
        guideway project.
          (B) At least 30 days before issuing a letter under 
        subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the Secretary of 
        Transportation shall notify in writing the Committee on 
        [Public Works and Transportation] Transportation and 
        Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
        Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
        Senate of the proposed issuance of the letter.
          (C) The issuance of a letter is deemed not to be an 
        obligation under sections 1108(c) and (d), 1501, and 
        1502(a) of title 31 or an administrative commitment.
          (D) An obligation or administrative commitment may be 
        made only when amounts are appropriated.
          (2) Full financing grant agreements.--(A) The 
        Secretary of Transportation may make a full financing 
        grant agreement with an applicant. The agreement 
        shall--
                  (i) establish the terms of participation by 
                the United States Government in a project under 
                this section;
                  (ii) establish the maximum amount of 
                Government financial assistance for the 
                project;
                  (iii) cover the period of time for completing 
                the project, including a period extending 
                beyond the period of an authorization; and
                  (iv) make timely and efficient management of 
                the project easier according to the law of the 
                United States.
          (B) An agreement under this paragraph obligates an 
        amount of available budget authority specified in law 
        and may include a commitment, contingent on amounts to 
        be specified in law in advance for commitments under 
        this paragraph, to obligate an additional amount from 
        future available budget authority specified in law. The 
        agreement shall state that the contingent commitment is 
        not an obligation of the Government. Interest and other 
        financing costs of efficiently carrying out a part of 
        the project within a reasonable time are a cost of 
        carrying out the project under a full financing grant 
        agreement, except that eligible costs may not be more 
        than the cost of the most favorable financing terms 
        reasonably available for the project at the time of 
        borrowing. The applicant shall certify, in a way 
        satisfactory to the Secretary of Transportation, that 
        the applicant has shown reasonable diligence in seeking 
        the most favorable financing terms. The amount 
        stipulated in an agreement under this paragraph for a 
        fixed guideway project shall be sufficient to complete 
        at least an operable segment.
          (3) Early system work agreements.--(A) The Secretary 
        of Transportation may make an early systems work 
        agreement with an applicant if a record of decision 
        under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
        U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) has been issued on the project and 
        the Secretary finds there is reason to believe--
                  (i) a full financing grant agreement for the 
                project will be made; and
                  (ii) the terms of the work agreement will 
                promote ultimate completion of the project more 
                rapidly and at less cost.
          (B) A work agreement under this paragraph obligates 
        an amount of available budget authority specified in 
        law and shall provide for reimbursement of preliminary 
        costs of carrying out the project, including land 
        acquisition, timely procurement of system elements for 
        which specifications are decided, and other activities 
        the Secretary of Transportation decides are appropriate 
        to make efficient, long-term project management easier. 
        A work agreement shall cover the period of time the 
        Secretary considers appropriate. The period may extend 
        beyond the period of current authorization. Interest 
        and other financing costs of efficiently carrying out 
        the work agreement within a reasonable time are a cost 
        of carrying out the agreement, except that eligible 
        costs may not be more than the cost of the most 
        favorable financing terms reasonably available for the 
        project at the time of borrowing. The applicant shall 
        certify, in a way satisfactory to the Secretary, that 
        the applicant has shown reasonable diligence in seeking 
        the most favorable financing terms. If an applicant 
        does not carry out the project for reasons within the 
        control of the applicant, the applicant shall repay all 
        Government payments made under the work agreement plus 
        reasonable interest and penalty charges the Secretary 
        establishes in the agreement.
          (4) Total estimated future obligations and contingent 
        commitments.--The total estimated amount of future 
        obligations of the Government and contingent 
        commitments to incur obligations covered by all 
        outstanding letters of intent, full financing grant 
        agreements, and early systems work agreements may be 
        not more than the greater of the amount authorized 
        under section 5338(a) of this title to carry out this 
        section or 50 percent of the uncommitted cash balance 
        remaining in the Mass Transit Account of the Highway 
        Trust Fund (including amounts received from taxes and 
        interest earned that are more than amounts previously 
        obligated), less an amount the Secretary of 
        Transportation reasonably estimates is necessary for 
        grants under this section not covered by a letter. The 
        total amount covered by new letters and contingent 
        commitments included in full financing grant agreements 
        and early systems work agreements may be not more than 
        a limitation specified in law.
          (5) Preauthorization of full federal financial 
        responsibility.--
                  (A) In general.--After the date of the 
                enactment of this paragraph and before the date 
                on which Federal-aid highway and transit 
                programs are reauthorized, the Secretary of 
                Transportation may not issue a letter of 
                intent, or enter into a full financing grant 
                agreement or early systems work agreement, 
                under this section for a project or operable 
                segment of a project unless the full amount of 
                Federal financial responsibility for the 
                project or operable segment of a project has 
                been included in an authorization law.
                  (B) Limitation.--The prohibition on entering 
                into a full financing grant agreement under 
                this paragraph shall not apply--
                          (i) to any project for which a letter 
                        of intent was issued before the date of 
                        the enactment of this paragraph; and
                          (ii) to any project included as an 
                        element of an interrelated project 
                        which also includes another project for 
                        which a letter of intent was issued 
                        before such date of enactment.
          * * * * * * *
  (m) Allocating Amounts.--
          (1) Percentages.--Of the amounts available for grants 
        and loans under this section for each of the fiscal 
        years ending September 30, 1993-1997--
                  (A) 40 percent is available for fixed 
                guideway modernization;
                  (B) 40 percent is available for capital 
                projects for new fixed guideway systems and 
                extensions to existing fixed guideway systems; 
                and
                  (C) 20 percent is available to replace, 
                rehabilitate, and buy buses and related 
                equipment and to construct bus-related 
                facilities.
          (2) Nonurbanized area allocation.--At least 5.5 
        percent of the amounts available in each fiscal year 
        under paragraph (1)(C) of this subsection is available 
        for areas other than urbanized areas.
          (3) Reports.--Not later than January 20 of each year, 
        the Secretary of Transportation shall submit to the 
        Committee on [Public Works and Transportation] 
        Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
        and Urban Affairs of the Senate [a proposal on the 
        allocation] a report on the proposed allocation of 
        amounts to be made available to finance grants and 
        loans for capital projects for new fixed guideway 
        systems and extensions to existing fixed guideway 
        systems among applicants for those amounts. Such report 
        shall include for each such capital project the 
        following:
                  (A) An analysis of the potential funding 
                requirements of the project under paragraph 
                (1)(B) in the succeeding 5 fiscal years.
                  (B) A description of the planning and study 
                process undertaken to select the locally 
                preferred alternative for the project.
                  (C) A description of efforts undertaken to 
                seek alternative funding sources for the 
                project.
          (4) Multiple allocations.--A person applying for, or 
        receiving, assistance for a project described in clause 
        (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) of this subsection 
        may receive assistance for a project described in 
        another of those clauses.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 5318. Bus testing facility

  (a) * * *
  (b) Operation and Maintenance.--The Secretary shall make a 
contract or cooperative agreement with a qualified person to 
operate and maintain the facility. The contract or cooperative 
agreement may provide for the testing of rail cars and other 
vehicles at the facility.
          * * * * * * *
  (f) Conversion of Contracts.--The Secretary may convert 
existing contracts entered into under this section into 
cooperative agreements.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 5325. Contract requirements

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (e) Special Rules for Engineering and Design Contracts.--
          (1) Performance and audits.--Any contract or 
        subcontract awarded in accordance with subsection (d), 
        whether funded in whole or in part with Federal transit 
        funds, shall be performed and audited in compliance 
        with cost principles contained in the Federal 
        acquisition regulations of part 31 of title 48 of the 
        Code of Federal Regulations.
          (2) Indirect cost rates.--Instead of performing its 
        own audits, a recipient of funds under a contract or 
        subcontract awarded in accordance with subsection (d) 
        shall accept indirect cost rates established in 
        accordance with the Federal acquisition regulations for 
        1-year applicable accounting periods by a cognizant 
        Federal or State government agency, if such rates are 
        not currently under dispute. Once a firm's indirect 
        cost rates are accepted, the recipient of such funds 
        shall apply such rates for the purposes of contract 
        estimation, negotiation, administration, reporting, and 
        contract payment and shall not be limited by 
        administrative or de facto ceilings of any kind. A 
        recipient of such funds requesting or using the cost 
        and rate data described in this paragraph shall notify 
        any affected firm before such request or use. Such data 
        shall be confidential and shall not be accessible or 
        provided, in whole or in part, to another firm or to 
        any government agency which is not part of the group of 
        agencies sharing cost data under this paragraph, except 
        by written permission of the audited firm. If 
        prohibited by law, such cost and rate data shall not be 
        disclosed under any circumstances.
          (3) State option.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall take 
        effect 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
        subsection with respect to all States; except that if a 
        State, during such 2-year period, adopts by statute an 
        alternative process intended to promote engineering and 
        design quality and ensure maximum competition by 
        professional companies of all sizes providing 
        engineering and design services, such paragraphs shall 
        not apply with respect to such State.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 5328. Project review

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Program of Interrelated Projects.--(1) In this 
subsection, a program of interrelated projects includes the 
following:
          (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (G) the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority light 
        rail elements of the New System Plan, consisting of the 
        locally preferred alternative for the South Oak Cliff 
        corridor, the South Oak Cliff corridor extension-[Camp 
        Wisdom] Interstate Route 20, L.B.J. Freeway, the West 
        Oak Cliff corridor-Westmoreland, the North Central 
        corridor-Park Lane, the North Central corridor-
        Richardson, Plano, and Garland extensions, the Pleasant 
        Grove corridor-Buckner, and the Carrollton corridors-
        Farmers Branch and Las Colinas terminal.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 5331. Alcohol and controlled substances testing

  (a)  * * *
  [(b) Testing Program for Mass Transportation Employees.--
(1)(A) In the interest of mass transportation safety, the 
Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations not 
later than October 28, 1992, that establish a program requiring 
mass transportation operations that receive financial 
assistance under section 5307, 5309, or 5311 of this title or 
section 103(e)(4) of title 23 to conduct preemployment, 
reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of mass 
transportation employees responsible for safety-sensitive 
functions (as decided by the Secretary) for the use of alcohol 
or a controlled substance in violation of law or a United 
States Government regulation.]
  (b) Testing Program for Mass Transportation Employees.--
(1)(A) In the interest of mass transportation safety, the 
Secretary shall prescribe regulations that establish a program 
requiring mass transportation operations that receive financial 
assistance under section 5307, 5309, or 5311 of this title or 
section 103(e)(4) of title 23 to conduct preemployment, 
reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of mass 
transportation employees responsible for safety-sensitive 
functions (as decided by the Secretary) for the use of a 
controlled substance in violation of law or a United States 
Government regulation and to conduct reasonable suspicion, 
random, and post-accident testing of such employees for the use 
of alcohol in violation of law or a United States Government 
regulation. The regulations shall permit such operations to 
conduct preemployment testing of such employees for the use of 
alcohol.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 5337. Apportionment of appropriations for fixed guideway 
                    modernization

  (a) Percentage Distribution.--The Secretary of Transportation 
shall apportion amounts made available for fixed guideway 
modernization under section 5309 of this title for each of the 
fiscal years ending September 30, 1993-1997, as follows:
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (3) The next $70,000,000 shall be apportioned as 
        follows:
                  (A) 50 percent in the urbanized areas listed 
                in paragraphs (1) and (2) as provided in 
                section 5336(b)(2)(A) of this title.
                  (B) 50 percent in other urbanized areas 
                eligible for assistance under section 
                5336(b)(2)(A) of this title if the areas 
                contain fixed guideway systems placed in 
                revenue service at least 7 years before the 
                fiscal year in which amounts are made available 
                and in any other urbanized area if, before the 
                first day of the fiscal year, the area 
                satisfies the Secretary that the area has 
                modernization needs that cannot be met 
                adequately with amounts received as provided in 
                section 5336(b)(2)(A). The Alaska Railroad is 
                eligible for assistance under this subparagraph 
                with respect to improvements to its passenger 
                operations.
          * * * * * * *

                       SUBTITLE V--RAIL PROGRAMS

          * * * * * * *

                             PART A--SAFETY

                          CHAPTER 201--GENERAL

          * * * * * * *

              SUBCHAPTER II--PARTICULAR ASPECTS OF SAFETY

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 20140. Alcohol and controlled substances testing

  (a)  * * *
  (b) General.--(1) In the interest of safety, the Secretary of 
Transportation shall prescribe regulations and issue orders, 
not later than October 28, 1992, related to alcohol and 
controlled substances use in railroad operations. The 
regulations shall establish a program requiring--
          [(A) a railroad carrier to conduct preemployment, 
        reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing 
        of all railroad employees responsible for safety-
        sensitive functions (as decided by the Secretary) for 
        the use of alcohol or a controlled substance in 
        violation of law or a United States Government 
        regulation; and]
          (A) a railroad carrier to conduct preemployment, 
        reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing 
        of all railroad employees responsible for safety-
        sensitive functions (as decided by the Secretary) for 
        the use of a controlled substance in violation of law 
        or a United States Government regulation, and to 
        conduct reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident 
        testing of such employees for the use of alcohol in 
        violation of law or a United States Government 
        regulation; the regulations shall permit such railroad 
        carriers to conduct preemployment testing of such 
        employees for the use of alcohol; and
          * * * * * * *

             SUBTITLE VI--MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS

          * * * * * * *

                            PART A--GENERAL

          * * * * * * *

                 CHAPTER 303--NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 30308. Authorization of appropriations

  (a) General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall make 
available from amounts made available to carry out section 402 
of title 23 $4,000,000 for each of the fiscal years ending 
September 30, 1993, and September 30, 1994 [and $2,550,000 for 
fiscal year 1995] and $2,550,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 
and 1996, to carry out this chapter.
          * * * * * * *

            CHAPTER 313--COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 31306. Alcohol and controlled substances testing

  (a)  * * *
  [(b) Testing Program for Operators of Commercial Motor 
Vehicles.--(1)(A) In the interest of commercial motor vehicle 
safety, the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe 
regulations not later than October 28, 1992, that establish a 
program requiring motor carriers to conduct preemployment, 
reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of 
operators of commercial motor vehicles for the use of alcohol 
or a controlled substance in violation of law or a United 
States Government regulation.]
  (b) Testing Program for Operators of Commercial Motor 
Vehicles.--(1)(A) In the interest of commercial motor vehicle 
safety, the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe 
regulations that establish a program requiring motor carriers 
to conduct preemployment, reasonable suspicion, random, and 
post-accident testing of operators of commercial motor vehicles 
for the use of controlled substance in violation of law or a 
United States Government regulation and to conduct reasonable 
suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of such operators 
for the use of alcohol in violation of law or a United States 
Government regulation. The regulations shall permit such motor 
carriers to conduct preemployment testing of such employees for 
the use of alcohol.
          * * * * * * *

                    SUBTITLE VII--AVIATION PROGRAMS

          * * * * * * *

                    PART A--AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY

          * * * * * * *

                          SUBPART III--SAFETY

          * * * * * * *

         CHAPTER 451--ALCOHOL AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES TESTING

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 45102. Alcohol and controlled substances testing programs

  [(a) Program for Employees of Air Carriers and Foreign Air 
Carriers.--(1) In the interest of aviation safety, the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
prescribe regulations not later than October 28, 1992, that 
establish a program requiring air carriers and foreign air 
carriers to conduct preemployment, reasonable suspicion, 
random, and post-accident testing of airmen, crewmembers, 
airport security screening contract personnel, and other air 
carrier employees responsible for safety-sensitive functions 
(as decided by the Administrator) for the use of alcohol or a 
controlled substance in violation of law or a United States 
Government regulation.]
  (a) Program for Employees of Air Carriers and Foreign Air 
Carriers.--(1) In the interest of aviation safety, the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
prescribe regulations that establish a program requiring air 
carriers and foreign air carriers to conduct preemployment, 
reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of 
airmen, crewmembers, airport security screening contract 
personnel, and other air carrier employees responsible for 
safety-sensitive functions (as decided by the Administrator) 
for the use of a controlled substance in violation of law or a 
United States Government regulation; and to conduct reasonable 
suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of airmen, 
crewmembers, airport security screening contract personnel, and 
other air carrier employees responsible for safety-sensitive 
functions (as decided by the Administrator) for the use of 
alcohol in violation of law or a United States Government 
regulation. The regulations shall permit air carriers and 
foreign air carriers to conduct preemployment testing of 
airmen, crewmembers, airport security screening contract 
personnel, and other air carrier employees responsible for 
safety-sensitive functions (as decided by the Administrator) 
for the use of alcohol.
          * * * * * * *
  [(b) Program for Employees of the Federal Aviation 
Administration.--(1) The Administrator shall establish a 
program of preemployment, reasonable suspicion, random, and 
post-accident testing for the use of alcohol or a controlled 
substance in violation of law or a Government regulation for 
employees of the Administration whose duties include 
responsibility for safety-sensitive functions.]
  (b) Program for Employees of the Federal Aviation 
Administration.--(1) The Administrator shall establish a 
program of preemployment, reasonable suspicion, random, and 
post-accident testing for the use of a controlled substance in 
violation of law or a United States Government regulation for 
employees of the Administration whose duties include 
responsibility for safety-sensitive functions and shall 
establish a program of reasonable suspicion, random and post-
accident testing for the use of alcohol in violation of law or 
a United States Government regulation for such employees. The 
Administrator may establish a program of preemployment testing 
for the use of alcohol for such employees.
          * * * * * * *

                           PART C--FINANCING

       CHAPTER 481--AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec.
48101.  Air navigation facilities.
48102.  Research and development.
48103.  Airport planning and development and noise compatibility 
          planning and programs.
     * * * * * * *
48111. Safeguards against deficit spending.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 48111. Safeguards against deficit spending

  (a) Estimates of Unfunded Aviation Authorizations and Net 
Aviation Receipts.--Not later than March 31 of each year, the 
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, 
shall estimate--
          (1) the amount which would (but for this section) be 
        the unfunded aviation authorizations at the close of 
        the first fiscal year that begins after that March 31, 
        and
          (2) the net aviation receipts at the close of such 
        fiscal year.
  (b) Procedure if Excess Unfunded Aviation Authorizations.--If 
the Secretary determines for any fiscal year that the amount 
described in subsection (a)(1) exceeds the amount described in 
subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall determine the amount of 
such excess.
  (c) Adjustment of Authorizations if Unfunded Authorizations 
Exceed Receipts.--
          (1) Determination of percentage.--If the Secretary 
        determines that there is an excess referred to in 
        subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
        determine the percentage which--
                  (A) such excess, is of
                  (B) the total of the amounts authorized to be 
                appropriated from the Airport and Airway Trust 
                Fund established under section 9502 of the 
                Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9502) 
                for the next fiscal year.
          (2) Adjustment of authorizations.--If the Secretary 
        determines a percentage under paragraph (1), each 
        amount authorized to be appropriated from the Airport 
        and Airway Trust Fund for the next fiscal year shall be 
        reduced by such percentage.
  (d) Availability of Amounts Previously Withheld.--
          (1) Adjustment of authorizations.--If, after a 
        reduction has been made under subsection (c)(2), the 
        Secretary determines that the amount described in 
        subsection (a)(1) does not exceed the amount described 
        in subsection (a)(2) or that the excess referred to in 
        subsection (b) is less than the amount previously 
        determined, each amount authorized to be appropriated 
        that was reduced under subsection (c)(2) shall be 
        increased, by an equal percentage, to the extent the 
        Secretary determines that it may be so increased 
        without causing the amount described in subsection 
        (a)(1) to exceed the amount described in subsection 
        (a)(2) (but not by more than the amount of the 
        reduction).
          (2) Apportionment.--The Secretary shall apportion 
        amounts made available for apportionment by paragraph 
        (1).
          (3) Period of availability.--Any funds apportioned 
        under paragraph (2) shall remain available for the 
        period for which they would be available if such 
        apportionment took effect with the fiscal year in which 
        they are apportioned under paragraph (2).
  (e) Reports.--Any estimate under subsection (a) and any 
determination under subsection (b), (c), or (d) shall be 
reported by the Secretary to Congress.
  (f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the following 
definitions apply:
          (1) Net aviation receipts.--The term ``net aviation 
        receipts'' means, with respect to any period, the 
        excess of--
                  (A) the receipts (including interest) of the 
                Airport and Airway Trust Fund during such 
                period, over
                  (B) the amounts to be transferred during such 
                period from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
                under section 9502(d) of the Internal Revenue 
                Code of 1986 (other than paragraph (1) 
                thereof).
          (2) Unfunded aviation authorizations.--The term 
        ``unfunded aviation authorization'' means, at any time, 
        the excess (if any) of--
                  (A) the total amount authorized to be 
                appropriated from the Airport and Airway Trust 
                Fund which has not been appropriated, over
                  (B) the amount available in the Airport and 
                Airway Trust Fund at such time to make such 
                appropriation (after all other unliquidated 
                obligations at such time which are payable from 
                the Airport and Airway Trust Fund have been 
                liquidated).
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


       SECTION 306 OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990

SEC. 306. REGULATIONS.

  (a) Transportation Provisions.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Special rules for providing access to over-the-
        road buses.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) Final requirement.--
                          (i) * * *
          * * * * * * *
                          (iii) Effective period.--Subject to 
                        section 305(d), the regulations issued 
                        pursuant to this subparagraph shall 
                        take effect--
                                  (I) with respect to small 
                                providers of transportation (as 
                                defined by the Secretary), [7 
                                years after the date of the 
                                enactment of this Act] 3 years 
                                after the date of issuance of 
                                final regulations under 
                                subparagraph (B)(ii); and
                                  (II) with respect to other 
                                providers of transportation, [6 
                                years after such date of 
                                enactment] 2 years after the 
                                date of issuance of such final 
                                regulations.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


                    SECTION 176 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT

               limitations on certain federal assistance

  Sec. 176. (c)(1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (5) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply only 
        with respect to--
                  (A) a nonattainment area and each specific 
                pollutant for which the area is designated as a 
                nonattainment area; and
                  (B) an area that was designated as a 
                nonattainment area but that was later 
                redesignated by the Administrator as an 
                attainment area and that is required to develop 
                a maintenance plan under section 175A with 
                respect to the specific pollutant for which the 
                area was designated nonattainment.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


  SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1987

          * * * * * * *

                TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1987

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Federal-Aid Highway Act of 
1987''.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 149. DEMONSTRATION AND PRIORITY PROJECTS.

  (a) Project Descriptions.--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (69) Burbank-glendale-pasadena airport, california.--
        The Secretary shall carry out a [highway] project which 
        demonstrates methods of coordinating construction of 
        ground access to an airport [and construction of 
        terminal and parking facilities at such airport]. The 
        Secretary shall carry out such project at the Burbank-
        Glendale-Pasadena Airport, California, [by making a 
        grant for construction of such ground access to the 
        airport authority for such airport.] by preparing a 
        feasibility study and conducting preliminary 
        engineering, design, and construction of a link between 
        such airport and the commuter rail system that is being 
        developed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan 
        Transportation Authority.
          * * * * * * *
          (74) Chambersburg, pennsylvania.--The Secretary shall 
        carry out a highway project which demonstrates how 
        construction of an interchange on a north-south 
        interstate route will provide access to Chambersburg, 
        Pennsylvania, and relieve traffic congestion on an 
        existing interchange on such interstate route and other 
        projects in the counties of Bedford, Blair, Centre, 
        Franklin, and Huntingdon, Pennsylvania.
          * * * * * * *
          (89) East lafayette and lake charles, louisiana.--The 
        Secretary is authorized to carry out a project to 
        construct a full-diamond interchange to connect 
        Louisiana Highway 354 to Interstate Route I-10 in East 
        Lafayette, Louisiana and, of amounts made available to 
        carry out this paragraph, may use up to $456,022 to 
        carry out a comprehensive transportation and land use 
        plan for Lafayette, Louisiana, $1,000,000 to carry out 
        a project to construct an exit ramp from the eastbound 
        side of Interstate Route I-10 to Ryan Street in Lake 
        Charles, Louisiana, and $269,661 under this paragraph 
        for projects described in section 149(a)(90).
          (90) East lafayette and lake charles, louisiana.--The 
        Secretary is authorized to carry out a project to 
        construct a full-diamond interchange to connect 
        Louisiana Avenue to Interstate Route I-10 in East 
        Lafayette, Louisiana and a project to construct the 
        Contraband Bridge portion of the Nelson Access Road 
        Project.
          * * * * * * *
          (92) [United states route 48] Washington and 
        frederick counties, maryland.--The Secretary is 
        authorized to carry out a project on United States 
        Route 48 in Washington County, Maryland, to construct 
        an eastbound ramp to United States Route 40 and a 
        westbound access road from Mountain Road and to 
        construct an interchange between Interstate Route I-70 
        and Interstate Route I-270 in Frederick County, 
        Maryland.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


           SECTION 108 OF THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1956

SEC. 108. NATIONAL SYSTEM OF INTERSTATE AND DEFENSE HIGHWAYS.

  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
expediting the construction, reconstruction, or improvement, 
inclusive of necessary bridges and tunnels, of the Interstate 
System, including extensions thereof through urban areas, 
designated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (d) 
of section 103 of title 23, United States Code, there is hereby 
authorized to be appropriated the additional sum of 
$1,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, which 
sum shall be in addition to the authorization heretofore made 
for that year, the additional sum of $1,700,000,000 for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1958, the additional sum of 
$2,200,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959, the 
additional sum of $2,500,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1960, the additional sum of $1,800,000,000 for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, the additional sum of 
$2,200,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, the 
additional sum of $2,400,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1963, the additional sum of $2,600,000,000 for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, the additional sum of 
$2,700,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, the 
additional sum of $2,800,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1966, the additional sum of $3,000,000,000 for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, the additional sum of 
$3,400,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, the 
additional sum of $3,800,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1969, the additional sum of $4,000,000,000 for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, the additional sum of 
$4,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, the 
additional sum of $4,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1972, the additional sum of $4,000,000,000 for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, the additional sum of 
$2,600,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, the 
additional sum of $3,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1975, the additional sum of $3,000,000,000 for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, the additional sum of 
$3,250,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1977, the 
additional sum of $3,250,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1978, the additional sum of $3,250,000,000 for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979, the additional sum 
of $3,250,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1980, the additional sum of $3,500,000,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1981, the additional sum of $3,500,000,000 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, the additional 
sum of $3,200,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1983, the additional sum of $4,000,000,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1984, the additional sum of $4,000,000,000 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1985, the additional 
sum of $4,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1986, the additional sum of $4,000,000,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1987, the additional sum of $3,000,000,000 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988, the additional 
sum of $3,150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1989, the additional sum of $3,150,000,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1990, the additional sum of $3,150,000,000 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1991, the additional 
sum of $3,150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1992, the additional sum of $1,800,000,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1993, the additional sum of $1,800,000,000 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, the additional 
sum of $1,800,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1995, and the additional sum of $1,800,000,000, reduced by the 
amount made available under section 1045(b)(1)(B) of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996. Nothing in this 
subsection shall be construed to authorize the appropriation of 
any sums to carry out section 131, 136, or 319(b) of title 23, 
United States Code, or any provision of law relating to highway 
safety enacted after May 1, 1966. Beginning with funds 
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1980, no such 
funds shall be available for projects to expand or clear zones 
immediately adjacent to the paved roadway of routes designed 
prior to February 1967. Effective on and after the date of 
enactment of this sentence, the obligation of funds authorized 
by this subsection, except for advance construction interstate 
projects approved before the date of enactment of this 
sentence, shall be limited to the construction necessary to 
provide a minimum level of acceptable service on the Interstate 
System which shall consist of (1) full access control; (2) a 
pavement design to accommodate the types and volumes of traffic 
anticipated for the twenty-year period from date of 
authorization of the initial basic construction contract; (3) 
essential environmental requirements; (4) a design of not more 
than six lanes (exclusive of high occupancy vehicle lanes) in 
rural areas and all urbanized areas under four hundred thousand 
population, and up to eight lanes (exclusive of high occupancy 
vehicle lanes) in urbanized areas of four hundred thousand 
population or more as shown in the 1980 Federal census; and (5) 
those high occupancy vehicle lanes (including approaches and 
all directly related facilities) included in the interstate 
cost estimate for fiscal year 1981. The obligation of funds 
authorized by this subsection shall be further limited to the 
actual costs of only those design concepts, locations, 
geometrics, and other construction features included in the 
1981 interstate cost estimate, except in any case where the 
Secretary of Transportation determines that a provision of 
Federal law requires a different design, location, geometric, 
or other construction feature of a type authorized by this 
subsection. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
including any other provision of this subsection, where a 
project is to be constructed (1) to provide parking garage 
ramps in conjunction with high occupancy vehicle lanes which 
flow into a distributor system emptying directly into ramps for 
off-street parking with preferential parking for carpools, 
vanpools, and buses and the ramps are part of an environmental 
mitigation effort and are designed to feed into an aerial 
walkway system, or (2) to provide a parking lot near the 
terminus of an Interstate System spur route which radiates from 
an Interstate System beltway which will be used as an 
intermodal transfer facility for a light rail transit project 
to be constructed in the median of the spur route and the 
parking lot is part of an environmental mitigation effort, or 
(3) to provide a parking garage and associated facilities as 
part of an intermodal transfer facility with a transit system 
near or within an Interstate System route right-of-way which 
will have direct and indirect access to the facility by way of 
local streets and the parking garage and associated facilities 
are part of an environmental mitigation effort, or (4) to 
provide for the comprehensive upgrading of existing high 
occupancy vehicle lanes, new ramps and parking facilities at 
mass transit intermodal transfer points on an existing 
Interstate System route which has temporary high occupancy 
vehicle lanes in the median and the parking facilities and 
ramps are part of an environmental mitigation effort, the costs 
of such parking garage ramps, parking lots, parking garages, 
associated interchange ramps, high occupancy vehicle lanes, and 
other associated work eligible under title 23, United States 
Code, shall be eligible for funds authorized by this subsection 
as if the costs for these projects were included in the 1981 
interstate cost estimate and shall be included as eligible 
projects in any future interstate cost estimate. For purposes 
of this subsection, construction necessary to provide a minimum 
level of acceptable service on the Interstate System shall 
include, but not be limited to, any construction on the 
Interstate System which is required under a court order issued 
before the date of enactment of this sentence. Notwithstanding 
the fifth sentence of this subsection, the costs of a project 
which will upgrade an interstate route and will complete a gap 
on the Interstate System providing access to an international 
airport and which was described as the preferred alternative in 
a final environmental impact statement submitted to the 
Secretary of Transportation on September 30, 1983, shall be 
eligible for funds authorized by this subsection as if such 
costs were included in the 1981 interstate cost estimate and 
shall be included as eligible costs in any future interstate 
cost estimate, except that [(1)] such costs may be further 
developed in the design and environmental process under normal 
Federal-aid interstate procedures[, and (2) the amount of such 
costs shall not include the portion of the project between High 
Street and Causeway Street].
                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    We oppose the National Highway System Designation Act of 
1995, as ordered reported by the Committee.
    This bill was intended to address two critical problems 
which threaten our Nation's transportation system: designating 
the National Highway System (NHS) and fixing a budget 
scorekeeping problem. Regrettably, we no longer believe it will 
accomplish these important objectives.
    The Committee leadership worked long and hard to work out a 
compromise bill. We all recognized the importance of this bill 
and worked hard to avoid the kind of controversies which could 
impede its progress, even where that meant accepting policy 
compromises which were not fully compatible with our positions, 
but which were necessary in an attempt to move the bill forward 
on a bipartisan basis. The bill as introduced which designated 
the NHS and provided a workable solution to the budget 
scorekeeping problem, was a compromise that we could support.
    We believe the bill as introduced was enhanced by the 
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation's adoption of the 
``Truth in Budgeting'' amendment. The ``Truth in Budgeting'' 
provisions of this bill are identical to the trust funds off-
budget bill, H.r. 842, unanimously approved by the Committee 
earlier this year. That bill is cosponsored by a majority of 
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives including every 
Member of this Committee. The four infrastructure trust funds 
have common and unique characteristics which argue for special 
budget status and taking these trust funds off-budget is not a 
partisan issue. Rather, it is an issue of economics, of 
fairness, and of simple arithmetic. It is time to free the 
trust funds once and for all.
    However, the Committee also adopted several amendments, 
such as repeal of the national maximum speed limit and 
motorcycle helmet requirement, that will lead to thousands of 
American deaths every year. When these amendments are 
considered together with provisions already in the bill which 
we opposed and which we accepted only as part of a balanced 
compromise, this bill no longer in our view represents a viable 
means to designating the NHS, no longer represents a reasonable 
compromise, and we cannot in good conscience support it.
    The issues of greatest concern in the bill as reported are 
the repeal of the national speed limit, the effective repeal of 
the motorcycle helmet provision, the granting of substantial 
waivers to federal commercial motor vehicle safety standards, 
and the sequester of FY 97 highway and transit funds, also 
known as ``the trigger''. This bill, as amended, repeals the 
national maximum speed limit. Although today's cars are much 
safer than those of 20 years ago, they are not a substitute for 
speed limits. We need both safer vehicles and a national 
maximum speed limit. The data are unequivocal. When Congress 
enacted the national speed limit, fatalities dropped 16 percent 
the very first year. When Congress later raised that speed 
limit, the fatality rate rose with it, increasing by 18 
percent. Moreover, this increased fatality rate is only the tip 
of the iceberg: for every one highway fatality, 14 people are 
hospitalized and 136 are medically attended.
    For these reasons, we believe that there is a need to 
maintain an overall national maximum speed limit. During 
Committee consideration of the bill, a compromise amendment was 
offered to establish a national maximum speed limit of 65 miles 
per hour while giving the states more flexibility within that 
overall limit. However, the amendment was not agreed to and we 
cannot support the straight repeal of our Nation's speed limit.
    Under the bill, as amended, states would have no speed 
limits at all. Think of large trucks passing motorists at 
unlimited speeds. The result is going to be the loss of 
thousands of American lives every year. We cannot support that 
result. In addition, this bill, as amended, repeals the 
national motorcycle helmet provision, another lifesaving 
measure. Again, we have historical data that show without 
question the effectiveness of helmets in preventing deaths and 
serious injuries and the effectiveness of a national provision 
in encouraging helmet use. When 27 states repealed or weakened 
their helmet laws, motorcycle fatalities increased 61 percent, 
while registrations increased only 15 percent.
    As if these two deadly policy changes were not enough, the 
Committee also adopted a hastily drafted package of exemptions 
for certain industries from the motor carrier safety and 
commercial driver's license requirements. The bill, as amended, 
grants waivers to huge segments of the commercial vehicle 
population from the most basic safety provisions. Most 
importantly, this bill removes all federal safety standards for 
commercial vehicles between 10,000 and 26,000 pounds. As a 
result of that one provision, nearly 40 percent of trucks that 
now must comply with requirements such as driver qualifications 
and drug and alcohol prohibitions will be completely exempt.
    Other provisions in this bill grant waivers for specified 
industries from hours of service standards designed to prevent 
truck driver fatigue and the accidents caused by fatigue. We do 
not believe that victims of a crash with one of the vehicles 
that will be exempt under this bill care much whether the 
vehicle is transporting agricultural supplies or construction 
equipment. The public has consistently indicated that as far as 
they are concerned, a truck is a truck, and there should be 
uniform safety standards.
    Moreover, it is completely irresponsible for Congress to 
pick and choose to whom to grant waivers, to make safety 
determinations, without adequate background, knowledge, or 
expertise. Congress has already directed the U.S. Department of 
Transportation to undertake millions of dollars of research on 
the very complex topic of driver fatigue. These studies are 
currently underway. We should not grant statutory waivers 
without considering the results of this work.
    Furthermore, several of these waivers have already been 
requested administratively and have been denied because they 
did not meet the statutory test of being ``consistent with the 
public interest and the safe operation of commercial motor 
vehicles.'' Is Congress now going to say that, even though a 
wavier is not consistent with the safe operation of commercial 
motor vehicles, we should grant it anyway? What are we saying 
to the residents of our districts who may be injured or even 
killed by these waivers?
    Together, these amendments will cost lives and taxpayer 
dollars. These costs are not simply borne with the states that 
choose to allow higher speeds or unhelmeted riders or by the 
companies who fail to adopt basic safety standards for their 
drivers. We all pay. We pay through higher taxes to fund 
Medicare and Medicaid for those who need long-term care due to 
severe injuries, for emergency response services, and for more 
expensive goods and services. All told, highway crashes cost 
the economy more than $135 billion every year.
    As Members of Congress, we often have opportunities to vote 
on various funding issues. It is rare for us to be able to vote 
on an issue that is so directly a matter of life and death. 
That opportunity is now upon us. We cannot support a bill that 
will kill and maim thousands more people on our Nation's 
highways under the deceptive guise of individual and states' 
rights.
    In addition, as we have stated from the outset, we are 
concerned about the so-called ``trigger.'' The trigger 
provision sequesters ISTEA funds from the states during fiscal 
year 1997 for up to 10 months. Call it what you will, it 
withholds funds from badly needed transportation projects and 
breaks our commitment to the states at a time when our Nation's 
infrastructure is crumbling. For instance, more than one-half 
of our highways are in poor to fair condition and in need of 
immediate repair. The cost to eliminate these backlogged 
highway deficiencies is estimated at $212 billion. In addition, 
one of every three bridges is rated structurally deficient or 
functionally obsolete. These inadequate conditions have a 
substantial adverse effect on our economy and our ability to 
compete in the global market.
    Four years ago, with the enactment of ISTEA, Congress, and 
in particular this Committee, made a commitment to the states. 
We told them that they could plan for the future. We would give 
them time to develop strategic plans and implement 
transportation systems which would prepare them for the 21st 
Century. This bill breaks that commitment. Despite our Nation's 
infrastructure needs and ISTEA commitment, this bill proposes 
to sequester badly needed transportation infrastructure funds 
in order to leverage consideration of legislative proposals 
next year. An entire construction season could be lost. This is 
a bad precedent. The Committee should not adopt legislation 
that creates an environment of such funding instability for the 
states and local governments.
    Moreover, the money we are withholding is not even our own. 
We support taking the trust funds off budget because we want to 
restore a promise made to the American people 40 years ago. We 
asked motorists to pay a gasoline tax into a common trust fund 
that would build America's Interstate Highways and other roads 
and bridges of national interest. At a time when every Member 
of this Committee is urging that these funds be rededicated to 
their original purpose and not be used for deficit reduction, 
this Committee is reporting a bill which will hold hostage the 
distribution of these motorists' gas taxes. Let us not play 
Russian roulette with programs we all believe in.
    In the final analysis, we cannot support a bill which 
repeals some of our Nation's most important transportation 
safety laws, such as the national maximum speed limit, 
motorcycle helmet law, and motor carrier safety requirements, 
and breaks our funding commitment to the states.
    Unfortunately in this bill we have forgotten what we're 
here to do: designate the NHS and fix a budget scorekeeping 
problem. With the inclusion of such controversial safety and 
funding provisions, this bill threatens these objectives. As 
Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena stated in a letter to 
Committee Members: ``Not only would inclusion of such a 
controversial trigger delay enactment of an NHS bill, it would 
create a crisis atmosphere, interrupting already authorized 
funding for States and localities and stalling vitally needed 
transportation projects.'' Similarly, the Senate Environment 
and Public Works Committee bipartisan leadership clearly stated 
in a recent letter to all Governors: ``If the House insists on 
including very contentious issues such as requiring the 
reauthorization of the surface transportation program a year 
early * * * the conference will fail and these highway funds 
will be lost.''
    We oppose the bill as reported by the Committee. As the 
bill proceeds to Floor consideration, we hope to refocus it on 
the problems that most need fixing and to leave behind the 
baggage that will only slow it down and reduce its chances of 
enactment.

                                   Norman Y. Mineta.
                                   James L. Oberstar.
                                   Nick Rahall.